The Portland daily press., 1888-04-25


ordinance (Rev. Ord, 1882. page 450 where
by 'all premiums for city notes renewed
were to be diverted from the sinking fund.
| This scheme encountered such decided op-
| position in the Common Council that it be-
/ came necessary to send for the Mayor, who
then and there explained to the Common
Council how the money to be received as
premium on the per cent Y627,oVo loan loan
street, and the increased value OF the prop,
| erty would return the money to the city.
This explanation of the Mayors design se-
cured the desired amendment, but as no pre-,
| MUM beyond the expense OF engraving anu
negotiating the bonds was ever realized, the
project fell through. But In the mean tllnS,
| the Common Council was so impressed Win
the conviction that this scheme OF building a
street out of premiums received from the
sale of city bonds was palpable niraction
! of that provision Of the State constitution
| forbidding the increase of the city's debt,
| (being the very provision to which the May.
| or had expressly referred in his calendar OF
May 26, 1887, as one Of the guarantees Oh the
new bonds,) that the Common Council unan-
imously passed an order requesting tne
opinion Of the City Solicitor on that point
but 1t was laid on the table by the BOARD OF
| Mayor and Aldermen, and never called up.
A fourth question is, how can the Mayor
reconcile his official declarations and action
| on the occasion referred to, in March, 1881,
| whereby he sought to divert the expected
| premium from the sale of the new city bonds
| our debt, to the extension OF High street,
| with his statement already quoted that "our
debt although now more than hall nil
Hon dollars less than it was in March, 1857
"is now so large as that 1t impairs our cred
itY
In view Of the amendment effected In the
sinking fund ordinance in March, 1887, and
the avowed purpose of the Mayor at that
| time to devote the premium which Otherwise
would have gone toward the reduction OF
"0ur debt" to the extension OF High street;
confess that should have apprehended
danger that portion of the anticipated pro-
ceeds Of our gas stock will be used Lor tne
same purposes now, particularly as the May
| or ha S been pleased to renew his recOmmen-
dations of that extension in his recent in-
augural. But | understand that the Ian
guage of the Mayor as stated In the PRESS
| amounts to an assurance that no such divls-
ion Of any part OF said ayails will be accom-
plished If In the Mayors power to prevent IL.
INQUIRER.
Il. The statement Of the Mayor in the
circular above referred to. that the bonds OF
the City Of Portland are an absolutely safe
investment for trust funds, and his state
ment in a recent interview published In the
PRESS, that our debt is so large as to impair
| our credit, are both true and entirely con-
sistent. Nobody, who Is acquainted with
the character of the people Of our city, VIII
| doubt for an instant that its obligations will
all be discharged according to their spirit
and letter. Enquirer does not doubt 1t.
But inquirer knows perfectly well that
there are. in many States, statutes forbidding
savings banks and cognate institutions to
invest in the securities Of municipality
whose debt exceeds 5 per cent OF its valua-
tion. Our debt exceeds that sum. Hence.
when our bonds are put upon the market
/ they are deprived Of large and important
class of customers; and a class, too, which
is able, by reason of its low taxation, to pay
| more for securities than the average GUS
toner. Hence 1t is perfectly true that the
size Of our debt impairs our credit That Is
| to say, we could negotiate loan at less
rate If our debt did not exceed per cent Of
our valuation. 1t is perfectly clear, from
| the connection in which the sentence quoted
| from the Mayors interview appeared, that
| he did not say, or mean to say, that the
| size of our debt created distrust Of our will
| ingness or ability to discharge our obliga-
tions, but that it restricted the market for
our securities, and in that way was an injury
| to our credit. 1t lessened the demand for
| our bonds, and consequently lessened their
price.
2. The Mayor is not responsible for the
city's using electricity for street lighting, in
stead of gas. The one has been substituted
| for the other in response to public demand.
| Electricity is, in every way, preferable for
| street lighting purposes to gas. and we have
| no doubt If proposition to return to the
| latter were submitted to our citizens 1t would
| be rejected by an overwhelming majority.
| The Mayor could not restore gas, however
much he might wish to do so.
g. Inquirer" regrets that the Mayor should
have made statements tending to depreciate
the value of gas stock. There was general
desire ON the part Of the public to know the
reasons why the Mayor favored the sale of
the cty's gas stock, and in response to
that desire he gave his views openly and
| frankly through a newspaper, the only
medium through which he could communi-
cate them to the public. He revealed moth
| ing about the property that any intending
purchaser would not have ascertained before
making an offer for the stock. Indeed the
published reports Of the gas company for
several years back have alluded to the neces-
sity of building new gasometer in the near
| future, and the fact that the consumption OF
| gas has been somewhat reduced by reason Of
the adoption Of electricity for street lighting
| is patent to everybody.
4. The Mayor neither affirmed nor denied
| the existence of combination to control
both electric and gas lighting. He assumed
| for the sake of the argument that the rumors
| current on that subject were true, and point
| ed out that the retention of the city's stock
| would not prove an insuperable obstacle to
| the success of such a movement. He also
| suggested some precautions in case it was
| decided to sell the city stock, which it
| might be well to take in view of the exist
ence of such combination if it did exist.
8. The matter Of the extension of High
| street has been exploited a great many times
until it has become something OF chestnut.
| Assuming the facts to be as inquirer
| states them the case simply amounts to this:
| The Mayor suggested to the City Council
| openly and frankly that it might be advisa-
| Bile il within their power to devote the pre-
MUM, if any was received. on some city
| bonds which were about to be sold to a much
needed improvement on High street. No
premium was received and thus the matter
| ended. Whether it would have been adj
visable to use the money expected in
| the way proposed, provided 1t could have
been done so legally--and there was never any
| reason to suspect that anybody was intend
| ing to so spend it on any other condition-is
a matter of judgment. The improvements
were badly needed, and no doubt they would
have largely enhanced the value of
property in that vicinity. On the
other hand. desirable as the improvements
are, it was very questionable II we could af-
ford them; and if we could not certainly
| they ought not to have been made.
6. Concerning the sale Of the gas stock
the PRESS has frequ emily expressed its opin-
| ion. Though there are arguments OF some
| force in its favor, yet on the whole the
weight of argument seems to be against It.
The sum received could not reduce our debt
below five per cent of our valuation. SO af-
| ter the sale we should be as much within the
statute restrictions as we now are. 1t does
not strike us as wise fnaneiering to sell ten
per cent stock to discharge a floating debt
when that debt can be funded at four per
| cent unless we can realize good deal more
| for II than we are likely to get for our gas