The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1889-02-09
The Portland = Rooneater am M,

inc roruduu q hoCnesteF Bill.
little less than year ago eight citizen
vountarily-it would not be too much to say
eagerly-assumed the responsibility of de-
Gliding whether a railroad should be per-
mitted to pass over certain territory, under
an amendment to an act which had been sug=
gested by one Of their own number. In course
of time the question came before them, and
1t began to be seen that there were two sides
to it, and that the people who took the affir.
native and the people who took the mega
tive were both very much In earnest. Infiu-
entail citizens were against granting the per-
missiol asked for, aud influential citizens
were in favor of it, On making this discov-
cry the majority of the eight citizens afore-
said began to wish they had not assumed the
responsibility and to cast about for some
means of relief from their disagreeable pre-
dicament Finally one, more ingenious than
the rest. suggested that the legislature be
asked to help them out Of the scrape. This
idea received the approval of the majority
of the eight, and they proceeded to act upon
it.
Accordingly an act was drawn up to sub
nit the question In controversy to the people
of Portland. The people of Portland had
never in any way, shape or manner asked
for such an act for themselves, or instructed
the eight gentlemen aforesaid to ask for such
an act in their behalf. The measure was
gotten up purely for the benefit of the eight
gentlemen, to enable them to shirk
disagreeable responsibility.
The next step was to submit draft of the
proposed act to the legislature. Precisely
10 what character it was pre-
sented there we are not Informed, but
in its true character it was petition for
relief from eight citizens of Portland. Ii
it appeared in any other form. If it appeared
as a request Of the citizens of Portland to be
allowed to vote on the Portland & Rochester
extension, then 1t took on a fraudulent dis
guise. The eight citizens in question never
had any authority to make such a request for
the people of Portland. II they assumed to
act as the city government then their act
was fatally defective, inasmuch as it was
never assented to by the common council.
In course Of time this petition for relief
was referred to the committee ON railroads
and hearing ordered. Thereupon certain
other citizens of Portland of as good stand
Ing In the community as the aforesaid eight,
went TO the capital to oppose 10 some of its
details the measure OF relief asked for by the
fainthearted octette. Naturally they assumed
that the railroad committee was a Judicial
tribunal which would listen patiently to
both sides of a question before deciding it,
and would treat their requests with as much
consideration as they treated that of the
eight. Judge Of their surprise when
they were assailed by volley of ques-
tlons which plainly implied that. In the COM
mittee's opinion they were Inothing but in
truders, with no rights that anybody was
bound to respect and with no business to be
around the capital. AS an act of condescen-
sion the committee did finally consent to
hear them after warning them to cut short
what they had to say.
Up to certain time the conduct of the
committee was explicable ON the theory
that they had regarded the petition Of the
eight citizens as the petition of the people
of Portland, and therefore looked upon the
opposition as coming from few dissenters,
or to use the phrase Of the President of the
Portland & Rochester Railroad Company,
"faetious opposition" But before the
hearing was through the committee seemed
to destroy this excuse for their abruptness.
For as soon as the selectmen of Deering. a
body of men standing In the same relation to
that town as did the eight petitioners to
Portland, asked that the people of Deering
be allowed to vote on the question at ISSUE
one Of the committee began to question them
la way that clearly showed that he had no
faith In their right or ability to represent the
people of that town. The attitude Of the
committee toward the selectmen OF Deering
and their attitude toward the aldermen of
Portland were utterly inconsistent, ON the
hypothesis that their cavalier treatment of
the Portland remonstants was dictated by
the belief that the aldermen's petition rep
resented the people of Portland, for If that
represented the people Of Portland manifest
ly the petition of the selectmen of Deering
represented the people of Deering quite as
much.
The attitude Of the Portland & Rochester
railroad Company, as disclosed by its Presi-
dent, towards the two petitions was quite as
inconsistent as that Of the committee The
Portland u Rochester Company thought the
voice OF the Portland aldermen was the
voice of the people, but the voice of the
Deerirg selectmen appeared to them TO be
simply the voice Of one man.
1.-The future will probably add some more
chapters to this interesting performance.