The Portland daily press., 1889-02-23
Another Augusta Clair,

Under the head OF "a question of Equity
Against Local Scheme" the Kennebec
Journal has this to say concerning the re-
mOval of the Capital:
Portland gentlemen who are irving To
force the new capitol cheme on the tax
payers Of Maine, have remarkable way of
stating their case. Among other reasons
which they give for their extraordinary
course is that the State capital located in
that city would be worth 100000 more or
less to the business and property of Portland;
that 1t would increase the taxable value Of
out their logic and it is plain that they would
reduce the taxable value of the property Of
Augusta to the same amount, or to a yery
large amount. What is. then, the moral
basis Of their scheme? Why, that they
would rob the city Of Augusta to the amount
of 100000 for the enrichment Of Portland to
that amount.
Whatever increase TO the property of Au-
gusta the establishment Of the capital here
gave, came to the holders of property of 1881
are nearly all In their graves, and their
heirs own but little of the present proper
ty of this city. The present generation OF
Augusta property owners have bought their
possessions, including the increment which
the State Capitol gave Augusta property
sixty years ago. Thus the Portland scheme
proposes to rob the present holders of proper
ty of the 100000 increment which the Au-
gusta owners have paid for in cash. To take
away the State Capital under such circum-
stances constitutes clear claim Of equity
remuneration to the amount the citizens of
Augusta are thus damaged, robbed, for the
benefit and ornament of another city.
Not only does the Portland scheme propose
to rob the citizens Of Augusta of the property
increment which they have paid for in
money, but 1t assumes that the thirty acles
OF land, on which the State House now
stands, worth perhaps today $4,000, should
remain the property of the State after
the Capital shall be removed. The
State has clear title to this land, the deed
Of which was obtained, for what considera.
ton? For the nominal sum of ten dollars
and with the understanding clearly implied,
that Augusta should be the permanent seat
Of government, and that the land should be
used as State House lot. Remove the cap
ltal from Augusta, not only should this land
revert TO It's original owners, their heirs and
assignees, but In addition to this land, in
equity, should be paid to the present prop
erty holders Of Augusta whatever damage
the capital removal would infiict on them.
What Portland gentleman has offered as a
reason for removing the Capital to this city
that 1t would increase the taxable property
OF the city 100000 more or less? No such
reason was given at either of the hearin rs
before the committee, and the PRESS. which
is quite as well situated TO hear reasons Of
fered by Portland gentlemen, has never
heard lisp Of this one. In all probability
the effect of the change of the Capital to
Portland on the taxable or real value of
property In this city would be scarcely ap-
preciable. How much 1t would diminish the
value of property in Augusta we will not
undertake to say, but perhaps 1t might
have some effect Of that kind. But its effect
would be only temporary, and in the long
run the removal of the Capital would be
help rather than a hindrance 10 Augustus
business prosperity, and increase rather
than diminish the value Of property there.
While the Capital remains there consider
able per cent. Of Augusta people viii depend
upon the business the legislature brings.
Take away the Capital, and they will turn
their attention to the development of Au-
gusta's resources, an occupation that will
prove much more profitable to them and to
their city.
The Journals assertion that the removal
Of the Capital would be practically robbery
of Augusta people is absurd. Had Augusta
kept the agreement 1t made with the State to
contribute to the construction Of the Capitol
building the Journals assertion would have
some little plausibility. though but lit
tie even then, for there never was any agree
ment that the Capital should remain there
forever. 1t was only to remain there during
the pleasure Of the Legislature. AS 1t is, the
State is bound neither in law nor equity to
keep the Capital where it is The people
that have bought property in Augusta since
tine capital was removed there and paid dear
er 1or 1t because the seat of government was
located there, have done so with the full
knowledge that Augusta was liable at any
time to cease to be the Capital. This is by no
means the first time the matter has been agi-
tated. 1t has been the subject Of discussion
every few years since the Capital has been
at Augusta. A few years ago the sessions
OF the Legislature were changed from an
nual to biennial. OF course this was severe
blow to Augusta. Boarding house receipts
were cut down one half by it, and very likely
property diminished in value in conse-
quence. Augusta property holders were,
If the Journals reasoning is sound,
robbed, for when they bought their property
annual sessions were held, and according to
the Journals reasoning in regard to the
Capital, there was an implied agreement
that annual sessions should always be held.
A little while ago Augustus spokesman
were urging as fatal objection to removing
the Capital that the land on which the State
house stands would revert to the heirs of
1he original owners. The PRESS pointed
oue tnat the deed was unconditional Now
snese. gentlemen turn about face and
use as a fatal objection that the property
WIN noe revert to the heirs Of the original
owners Their argument is, that there was an
agreement between the State and the own
erS that the Capital should always remain at
Augusta The answer is that there was mo