Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-05-23


to law, Greeting:
I'm the name of the State of Maine,
you are required to assemble at Me
oman hall, on the Goth day of Septem-
Der, A. D., 1887, at o'clock Z. M, then
and there to act on he following atr-
ticles to wit:
First, To choose moderator to
preside over said meeting.
Second, To see if the city will adj
wise fixing the valuation of the property
of the Edwards Mfg. Co, at $500, 600, for
purposes of taxation, provided said
company will build a new cotton mill
on the west side of the river, having a
capacity of 10000 spindles or more:
new mill for small manufactures on the
east side of the river and make other
improvements; said valuation to COM
mence when said cotton mill shall be
put in operation and continue for 10
wears from the expiration of the pres
ent limit of valuation.
""rhird. To act on any other business
legally before said meeting. The meet
ing will be open until clock p. M.
Given under our hands, this 18th day
of September, 1887. George f. Macom-
Der, Mayor; Henry G. Staples, Frank A.
Brick, b. f. Gaslin, B. f. Folsom, w.
II. Williams, Aldermen of the City of
Augusta
The meeting was to be held at
O'Clock. Sept. 20. That morning the
Kennebec Journal published a com
munication from citizen in which thte
writer said; The companys valuation
is now 100000, and is fixed at that fig
urc till 1898. Calling the rate of taxa
ton per cent, they are paying an
annual tax of $500 They now ask that
the valuation be raised to 100000, when
the new mill is completed (Which we
have reason to expect Will be not later
than April l, 1880, and kept at that fig
ure till 1903. We should therefore agree
to exempt such new mill from taxation
for a term of 10 years
therefore, | say that the contract
has expired. 1t is not for us to con-
slider at this time in any way, shape
or manner. If a former city govern
ment increased the tax, as was done
| in 1898, that should not affect our
action"
Alderman Manlcy here read the con-
tract as published in the revised or
he understood Hon. j. Manchester
| Haynes, one of the directors of the
company was present, and might give
| some information on the subject.
| Mr.. Haines began by saying that he
should like to state briefly the events
that have led up to this controversy.
In 1888" said Mr. Haynes, the val
uation was fixed at 100000 Il year
to begin and include that year. ana
to continue for 10 years. There is ne
doubt that that contract would expire
in 1892. Some time after the action of
1883. Mr. Marley and myself both be-
ing resident directors, sought to induce
the company to enlarge the capacity
of the plant here by the erection of a
new mill. At the 1887 meeting of this
stockholders | introduced a resolution
in favor of building Il new mill. and
told the company that the people OF
this city would be fair in the matter
of taxation. The resolution was dis
cussed until after midnight. Finally
one of the New York stockholders
moved that the resolution lie upon the
table. and that Il committee be appoint
ed to consider the matter. | did moi
want this motion to prevail and finall5
succeeded in securing the passage o.
the resolution. This resolution had /;
preamble in which it was stated thai
if the city would make a concession
in relation to taxes such as would be-
satisfactory to the company. then the
directors were authorized to dispose oil
stock sufficient to erect mill OF 3U,00'
or more SpindeS. The Board of Trad
took hold of the matter The public
meeting was held and advised that thu
city government make Il proposition t
the company, which was done in tn,
form of the order, which was read by
Mr.. Manlcy here. tonight. The citizen.
could not make trade. only the city
council could do that, and they did
The city council only makes the con
cesSion; the public meeting does no
do SO. The council made the trade
and the company accepted the terms
When we make contracts and sign then
we cannot say afterwards I did no
mean that The right of both partie:
must be protected"
The order of 1883 did not eXtcn,
until 1898. The Edwards Co. paid OF
5000 900 more property from 1890 thai
was agreed by the vote of 1889. The
order of 1883 WAS reScinded and abrO
gated by the vote of 1887 and an en-
tirely now contract was made, which
was to extend from the time the new
mill was in operation until 10 year!
latter 1899. In the latter year the val
uation was increased to $712,000 anC
since that time the company has paid
in round figures. 10000 in taxes Owe
and above the contract of 1887. Is it
therefore. unreasonable to ask that tn
tax remain as it has been for thi:
year?
1t is said that this contract is not :
legal contract, hUt | contend that it il
just as legal as the contract with til" Ma
sonic hall Mr.. Heath. who is Il good law
Yer, said that that was IA legal constitu
tionaI contract The Masonic hall built ;
IretaHing wall. and in consideration there
for the exemption was granted ihc Ed
wards Co. has given an equivalent 10 TN
city for the exc mptiOn it has had ana nov
asks to be continued to the end OF the
term Instead of building mill witt
land has employed 800 more persons on th'
dam than it employed before. | can per
lSonally save something, in my taxes if th'
tax on the company be raised, int | d.
not think it is right; and therefore | op
pose doing SO.
| Councilman Roothby said that It was no
a question of what the company has done
1t was Il question whether the city ha'
liI-n1 ~ tn its cont Of. - 90 rot ttIIk.