Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1908-05-13

Council.
The Chair asked Mr.. Uhler why the
title of this building-ooe piece Of prop
erty OF all the school properties--should
vest in the city. he could see 10 the
report q great deal OF trouble. II the
title to this building was vested In the
city lie could see where the school irus-
tees might decline to keep II in repair.
As far as he Was concerned be did not
care, but he thought 1t strange that the
committees should make such a report
and questioned the legality of lts pro-
ceedlngs.
MIR. Uhler explained that the question
arose in the committee; that Peabody
building wss sold without reference TO
the city council.
The Chair interrupted Mr.. Uhlsr and
asked II the money derived from the
sale was not immediatIJ turned into
school property.
Mr.. Uhler continued sad said he Was
heartily Ia favor OF The appropriation,
but he was still more in favor Of the
building being direct ssset of the city.
He further added that he presumed that
the committees who examined and re-
ported upon this matter. knew their
business as we'll as the ordinary run OF
men aud he claimed the city bond
holders we're entitled 10 some security.
The Chair asked Mr.. Uhler If all the
school property was not, ss a matter OF
fact, a city asset.
Mr.. Uhler wanted the property vested
as a direct city asset and went on at
length 10 sustain bis position holding
that II school property was sold Council
should be consulted Ia the matter.
should by chance the city go into bank
ruptcy ill the property should be held
liable for its debts.
The Chair said that he. was not called
upon to defend the school trustees, and
he bad not consulted one OF them con-
cerpiug this question. he was not enc
OF those Who thought the city WAS going
into bankruptcy, but If 1t did he hoped
the buildings in which the children
we're sehooled would not be sold. The
question OF asset appeared TO him as the
veriest nonsense, as any money realized
from the sale of school property had
to be turned back in the same channel.
He asked Mr.. Uhler II he thopQht the
city's securities would be affected II the
title of the school building rested 10 the
school trustees.
Mr. Uhlcr answered In the affirmative.
The Chair said II the school property
was an asset OF the city and was put
up at auction he hardly believed there
would BIZ man who would purchase II.
II he did The sentiment OF the people
would make life unhearsble for such
purchaser.
Mr.. Marshall spoke at length on the
vesting OF this title of the new school
building. He. too, thought 1t should
be the city's property, He paid tribute
10 The school trustees, as to their bust
ness qualifications, etc, but, he said,
The present school board perhaps would
have nothing to do with this new build
ing should 1t be sold 10 the future and
what council was looking to Was the
future. He further referred to the
rapid rise Of property valuations since
The purchase of the Peabody building in
1874 and said 1t was sold for less than
when first purchased, although the value
of property from Royal stieat to Hootf's
Run On King street had advanced from
25 TO 100 per cent. He referred to the
enormous prices paid for property on
this thoroughfare in The last few years.
The Chair reminded him that In 1874
the assessed valuation OF city property
was more than it IL today and that
there are more houses now than at that
time,
Mr.. Marshall, continuing, sald he did
not know the school trustees had the
right to dispose of school property with
Uut the knowlege or consent OF council
and he doubted If 20 per cent. OF the
people knew 1t. He said this was the
reason for only one bid on the Peabody
building. 10 conclusion he said that
II the city was to appropriate 500. 900
for q school building he wanted the title
vested Ia the city.
Mr.. Williams construed remark by
Mr.. Marshall as limiting that sufficient
publicity had not been given to the sale
Of Peabody building and defended the
school board, saying, the speech Of Mr..
Marshall vas unjust and unfair.
The CHAIR still contended that the
action OF the committee was q peculiar
proceeding. Referring to the remarks of
Mr.. Marshall about the sale OF the prop.
erty he said that when The trustees
heard there we're other bids they sought
The parties and requested then to make
an upset bid but without avail;
Ar. Birrell said he was heartily in
faypr Of the public SCHOOLS, but thought
the CREATURE vas not above the creator
and be thought The power that furnish
ed the money should have something to
do with the disposition of 1t. he, too,
paid q compliment 10 the efficiency OF
the school trustee. He said the sale was
advertised and he could see that every
one who wanted had an opportunity 10
purchase the property. He further said
he was against any proposition rtquir-
log the expenditure OF money until the
school building Was out of the way.
Mr.. Marshall explained that he TO-
tended no reflection on the school true
tees and made none. He said again the
people Of Alexsndris did not know the
school trustees bad the right TO sell the
school property wiIhogtdhe consent Of
Ooancl. He bad the highest regard
for the school TRUSTEES IS men of In.