The Portland daily press., 1894-07-03
MAYOR BAXTER'S REPLY.
Continued from First Page.

most Important point, IS the character
OF the men appointed. They should be live
men: fearless, honest, shrewd, and with
al capable; Indeed. they should possess
the serpent's traditional wisdom to cir
cumvent the cunning of that new varie-
ty of the lawF breaking genus, which
has evolved itself from the defects of
the prohibitory law. We're this the prop
er place TO discuss these defects, / should
point to several; and TO one defect in
particular, the correction of which
would enable whoever has charge of the
enforcement of the law to secure better
results AS it now is, the proprietor of
Il drinking place almost invariably es-
capes when seizure is made, by not be-
Ing found in possession. BY making the
premises liable for the traffic this diff
Guilty could be easily obviated. But this
is not the time nor the place to discuss
the defects of the prohibitory law. Our
own relations to it are sufficient, and
these commend to your careful consid-
Grafton.
10 sum up. The responsibility of en-
forcing the prohibitory law should not
be divided. Either the sheriff or the
mayor should be made wholly RESPONSE
BILE for its enforcement, and if the may
or, then the Office of liduor sheriff
should be abolished, and the appoint
ment and removal OF special policemen TO
enforce the law placed wholly in his
hands. Should the mayor fail then TO
enforce the law, there would be good rea-
son to hold him up to public reproba-
ton.
The address was listened to both by
the aldermen and by the larger portion
of the Council. A it's conclusion it was
voted, on motion of Alderman MCGOWAN,
that it be spread upon the ,records.of the
city.
Alderman Thompson spoke briefly, adj
vocating the appointment of a committee
as recommended by the mayor, and
made motion that such committee
be appointed.
IL being SO voted, Mayor Baxter APP
pointed the whole board of aldermen as
that committee, and named Mr.. Thomp-
son as chairman.
Alderman MCGOWAN said he thought
it was matter Of honor and pride for
the city government ito meet all attacks
upon it. When these attacks are charac-
terized by near illusions they fall far
short. 1t is base libel to point the
finger of scorn at any locality in the
city as pre-eminent in crime, the tongue
that does that is guilty of falsehood. I
claim that there is no more liquor old
in Gornam's Corner than in some other
sections CT the city; that Gorham's Cor
ner does not control this board, and that
this city government should resent such
q fragrant insult
NEW BUILDINGS.
The following petitions for leave to
erect new buildings were presented by
Alderman Little and referred:
Consolidated Electro Light Company,
20 erect a wooden coal shed, 60x12, on
Union wharf
Edin Boyden, 60 erect a wooden ell on
building at IS Turner street.
Henry Soule, to erect wooden two
aud one-half story dwelling on Oxford
street, corner of Chapel.
John B. Staples, to erect wooden two
st DRY dwelling at No37 Roberts street.
EYE AND EAR INFIRMARY AP-
PRECIPITATION.
An important .remonstrance was pre-
sented ohjecring to the appropriation of
the $1,000 for the Eye and Ear Infirmary.
The signers were Francis Fessenden,
Edward A. Noyes. Charles S. Fobes,
Samuel RoIfe, S. r. Small, Theodore G.
Woodbury., William 6 Davis, William M.
Bradley, George f. Talbot, W. H. And err
son, Charles II. Rayson. Lucien Snow,
Lucius C. Clark, f. r. Lewis, F.W. Bail
ey, and Hall L. Davis. These remon-
srants say they are actuated by no I'M
frIendliness towards the institution,
which merits generous support. as it is
doing a great work. Their objection is
based upon principle The infirmary is
not city hospit al; it's estabi shment
and maintenance are not authorized by
general laws or By the city charter; this
is not Que of the enumerated instances in
which the city may make appropriations
of money ;and this being the case, such an
improper expenditure being acquiesced
in, becomes precedent for other doubt
full cases.
The remonstrance was received, read
and placed on file.
The order appropriating $1,000 was re-
turned vetod by thu mayor.
Alderman Thompson disapproved the
veto. He believed the appropriation was
just. and that the veto should not be
sustained.
Alderman MCGOWAN agreed with this.
On the motion to pass it over the may
or's veto, Messrs. Dam, MCGOWAN,
Thompson. Peters and Randall voted
yes; Alderman Little voted no; Alder
IN an Smith was absent.
When the matter came into the lower
board, Councilman Mannix moved that
the board concur with the upper board
in passing the order over the Mayors
veto. The vote resulted as follows:
Yeas-Messrs. Ilsley, Haskell, O'Neil,
Maunix, Henley, Lefavor. Nickerson,
Howell, Winship, Mcdonald, Payson,
Snow-12.
Nays-Messrs. Anderson, Kent, John
ston, Pagan, Hollands.
Absent essrs. Hayes and Stover-2.
This vote being announced by the
clerk, President Laughlin said that an
order appropriating money could be
passed over the Mayors veto only by a
vote of two-thiras of the whole Council.
Get Get Get Get Get
- - ODD - 20 W@A