The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1897-06-12
JUDGE HOPKINS LETTER.
Highly Sarcastic Communication to
Deering Aldermen.
MAYOR DAVIS CAUSTIC COMMENT
ON THE SAME.

Another Spicy Meeting of the City Coun-
Gil of Portland's Next Neighbor-Mayor
Vetoes Forest Avenue Sewer Bill.
Deering city fathers held meeting last
night and as might have been expected by
the big crowd present there was plenty
of amusement for all hands and a little
left over for those who were not in at
tendance.
Judge Hopkins of the Deering NUM-
cipal court was ordered at a recent meet
ing of the city council to submit to that
body report on the cases tried before
him and the fines collected This order
was introduced by Alderman Gowen and
was based upon an act of the legislature
which unbeknown to the gentleman from
Stroudwater had been repealed at the last
legislature. Alderman Governs order
passed the city council at the meeting
where 1t was introduced and the city
| clerk notified Judge Hokpins of the action
| of the board.
| Last night during the meeting of the
city council Alderman Ayers stated that
| he understood the mayor had in his pos
session a communication from Judge
| Hopkins which he desired should be read.
In accordance with Alderman Ayers
request Mayor Davis ordered City Clerk
Jones to read the following communica-
| ton:
| Deering, June 2, 1897.
| To the city council:
! l acknowledge the receipt of record
of vote passed by you requesting me to
make a report of cases tried, fines re-
ceiyed, ETC., in the municipal court in
| accordance with a section of the revised
statutes.
| In reply I would respectfully observe
| that the alderman at whose request the
vote was passed is to be highly commend
| ed for bringing the subject to your atten
ton. He well knew that such a report
as he called for would be useless form
| ality, for the reason that the common
council has no jurisdiction over fines, or
costs, in the municipal court, that the
| accounts are audited by the county COM
missioners, and that the city council has
no more use for report of the cases in
| that court than it has for slice of the
| Pope's toe.
| Nevertheless such was the devotion of
the aldermen to a supposed abstract
provision of law that he felt it incumbent
upon himself to set in motion the NUM-
cipal mill to grind out nothing.
To bessure it somewhat detracts from
the merits of the alderman that he did
not initiate the proceedings of his own
volition but was instigated there to by
another whose name he does not give, lis
he ashamed of it?) and whom we shall
| accordingly call the great unknown.
Nevertheless he is to be congratulated
that while it may diminish his glory, it
adds to his good fortune that he has
among his constituents some one who
possesses the knowledge to instruct others
how they ought to perform their duties
the time to devote with unremitting as
siduity to that instruction, and the noble
courage to point out the plain require
| ments of the statutes to the officials of
Deering who are SO profoundly ignorant
as to imagine that they are expected to
perform their duties according to their
own best judgment, and not according
to his dictation, and SO foolish as to sus-
pect that sometimes others may be right
and he wrong.
Happy alderman, in having by his side
such mentor! Unalloyed happiness,
however, is never found in this vain and
transitory world.
Mentors may be mistaken. When they
are, and are known, they are apt to be
looked upon with contempt; and when
they are not known. the consequence of
their egotistic incapacity falls upon those
who are simple enough to be led by
them. A horrible suspicion arises that
in the present case the unknown mentor
has made a sad blunder and placed the
alderman in ridiculous situation
g The reason is that careful examina-
ton of the statutes fails to disclose any
provision which makes it obligatory upon
me TO make any report to the city coun-
Gil. There was an old provision in the
statutes of 1888, which required such
report, but Freeman's supplement, gives
it as eliminated I have consulted some
of the best lawyers in the city and they
advise me that it is not now in force
Perhaps l ought to rest content with
this advice but it carries the necessary
conclusion that this great unknown did
not know what he was about. Of course
being a great unknown we do not know
where he is at.
This conclusion has placed me on the
ragged edge of anxiety Two alternative
seem to be present and only two. The
first is that the old section which we
have all considered repealed may still be
in force. But this does not seem possible
The second is that the great unknown
does not possess sufficient capacity to dis
tinguish between a statute which has
been repealed and one still in force. This
[ am equally unwilling to believe. Some
of our public spirited citizens have from
time to time felt it to be their genial
duty in a genial and kindly manner to
expose the errors which have pervaded
our municipal affairs and the incapacity
of most of our municipal officers. Sup
pose one of these kindly critics should
prove to be the great unknown? What
confidence can we have in his criticism
hereafter? Nay, even we may suspect that
some of his past statements that certain
of our officers have not followed the plain
requirements OF the statutes, may not be
true.
Tn, Order tn Satt1a +hoca 5or,ltc T c,1orac+