Morning journal and courier., 1884-12-20
noARD OF CoUNcnLmEN.


 Consideratfon-spirit speeches on
 Roth Sides of the QuesffOn-Skfr-
 mfshing to Prevent Vote-The Case
 Not settled-Farther Discussion to
 Be Had Next Monday Night.
 A special meeting of the Board of Council men was held last evening, President GaIla- gher in the chair.
 The first business considered was the re- port of the Board of Finance relative to the Derby railroad and it's indebtedness to the city and the recommendations of the said Board looking to settlement between the city and the railroad.
 The clerk read the statement of the Board as reported to the Court of Common Coun- cil.
 A motion was made to concur with the
 Board of Aldermen.
 The discussion was opened by Councilman
 Thomas R. Trowbridge, jr. The speaker
 said that it appeared to him that the propo- sition made by the Board of Finance was
 the best that could be made under the cir
 cumstances He said the road was like a
 poor debtor standing at the door of credit
 or and asking for settlement. In his own case he would close the account of the debtor and open new account with him. It is,
 said the speaker, in my opinion 8 fair and equitable arrangement between the city and
 it's debtor.
 A petition signed by L. W. 6 P. Arm strong and large number of other business
 men was read asking that the Court of Com
 mon Council accept the proposition as recon
 mended by the Board of Finance.
 Councilman Graves said that though he was member of the Finance committee, yet he was unfortunately in the minority. He gave a resume of the hearing and different T1rO haf m IV1i ba was pending. He referred to the report of the subcommittee, which showed the actual legal indebtedness of the road to the city, which was stricken out by the full com mittee and in it's place this item was somewhat colored. It was matter in which the taxpayers of this city, rich and poor alike, were interested. When the Derby road was projected the city subscribed for two thousand shares and outsiders about the same. It was supposed that the road could be built for $40, ,OO0 mile, but it was found that 1t could not Then the road issued $240, ,000 in bonds and the city guaranteed these bonds, both principal and interest, pro vided the road failed to do so. This made the road cost $97, ,000 a mile and after it was built they could not stock it. The managers then stocked the road and received eost pf pfF the rone H1 6ah stooR 0n until if a should be paid for. Finally the city became the sponsor of the road for it's debts. When the flats on the water front were sold, on which the city held mort gage, $50,O00 paid to the city and the remaining $62, 900 remained in the road when it should have been turned over to the city treasurer. The city has paid for this road over $137, 900 within the last five years. Now the road is in frst-class condition, and 1t is earning money and has surplus. of S12, 900 in the treasury. Now they come for ward when they can pay the interest on their bonds and say they want settlement. In any settlement that we contemplate two things should be considered. All the com mercial advantages to be obtained for this road possible should be secured, but New Haven should have the control the city. If we give up our hold on the road of this road. They cannot lease this road as matters now stand, and they cannot do anything as mat ters now stand without the consent of we will finally lose 'entire control over it. The great trouble is that many of the re- presentations that have been made are utter ly fallacious. What right has the Court of Common Council to take this money out of the hands of the taxpayers and give it to few favored individuals? It is absolute and unqualified gift of the city to the road under the proposed arrangement. Another fallacy put forth is that this ar rangement will benefit tha eity's stock. The real truth is that this is gift and not a settlement. They don't want any settle ment. Nothing is settled and nothing is se- cured under th4e proposition. The only way to do is to say to the managers, run this road faithfully, do the best you can, and let matters stand as they are. It would have been great qualification to me if I could have supported this measure, but if should do so I should be ashamed to meet the poor cilmen be not guided by lobbyists, but by their own consciences in their vote on this matter.
 Mir. Sargent offered an amendment exclud- ing all matter of interest on the $204, 900 paid by the city on the guarantee bonds, amounting to $89, 900, which makes the total $305, ,000 more or less. The motion was lost.
 Councilman Sargent said he was not stockholder in this or any other road. His idea was that they should stand by the tax payers, especially the poor taxpayers; the rich taxpayers could take care of themselves. He said he would confine himself to the sec ond mortgage bonds. In the argument made between the road and the city, the road was to pay interest on these bonds, which they had failed to do for fifteen years and the tax had been paid by the taxpayers. The road 1 pay the interest on their first mortgage but | have never paid the interest on the second 1 mortgage. How can they pay their debts? 1 city of $389, ,000 and ask us to take stock | which is worth not more than $12 per share. l would much prefer to give them this | amount than to take this stock. The road | has never been run for the benefit of this l city or the taxpayers. Those who have made | money from this road have been the manu- | lecturers in the Naugatuck valley.
 Councilman Wolfe said that in treating this question we should look upon it in all | it's bearings. am not moved by sympathy toward the individual stockholders of this road, but am in favor of this proposed compromise and for these reasons: The road nas been of inestimable benefit to the citi- zens of New Haven.
 MT. Wolfe continuing said if this com promise is effected and the road is extended | hat coal and other articles can be brought o the city much less than it is at present. That this road cannot pay it's debts is very evident, and if the city should step in and ake the road it would be no benefit to the axpayers We have been asked what ,uerantee have we that these contracts will 1e carried out. If the city accepts the pro- position, it will gain majority of the stock md can entirely control it. I believe the sity has made a very bad investment, and LOW they should get what they can and con- ider themselves so much ahead. If with the New York and New Eng and road who will be benefited nore than the taxpayers of New Haven? I To not think any of us need to hang our reads in shame if we accept this compromise. l t is a simple question whether we had not better accept this proposition. I believe we lad. We had better get what we can now. f we cannot trust our own citizens we had better have another flood. believe it is the ,est compromise we can make.
 Councilman Mansfield went over the fig tres and claimed that the road had always ,aid the interest on the $25, 900. Continu- ng he said that the roads actual indebted less to the city was $392, GOO. How can this ebt be paida If the road cannot give us ome mode of payment then we had Ietter stop discussion. The balance sheet 1 f the road does not show the indebtedness y wear and tear on the rolling stock and machinery. If New Haven should foreclose n the Derby road to-day, the road would be ankrupt. I do not propose to look at this natter in a sentimental way, but only from usiness point of view. The city is precisely vhere business man would be. Now what ; hall be done7 A long third mortgage is , what better off would they beg Iaim not any; but you would be worse off nan before. A third mortgage would inn ern the first and second mortgage The ty is really the only party in interest and it the f1utv of the Court of Common Council