Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1860-02-10
Altering the line between Paris and
Norway.

divisions Of towns. and after a very hriei
and unsatisfactory hearing. the Committee
reported Bill. anneHing three double lots
containing some 500 acres to Norway
Thi. Bill wa. finally passed into law.
IL is but truth to lay. that the people OF
Pari. have not and cannot aequie.co IN
tia. measure. They deemed !, them a.
they do now unjust, ineHpodlcni and wrong.
Consequently at the last March Meeting a
Committee WI. chosen To look after the in
tere,u Of the town and procure an ai'era-
ton OF this law.
Al tho commencement Of this legislature
a Petition was presented signed by nearly
every voter in Paris nsking that the land
annexed to Norway last year, might be re-
annexed to Paris. Tho people Of Norway
demonstrated. The Committee on Division
ofTown. appointed meeting on this case
on Thursday Of last week, when the par
ties met and the hearing comm'need. The
cn.c was managed by Messr.. Baker and
Black for Paris and by Mes'r'. punnell
and Lcbroke Tor Norway. Therewers some
eleven wltnc..o. for the latter, and some
six witnesses Tor the former town.
\, the opening Of the case Mr. Black,
with the appreciation Of hi' fellow towns.
men present offered 10 settle this question
by compromise A distinct proposition
W.. made to Norway, With the design. pur
Jo., and hope that the question ish' be at
i.lac,oriiy and amic,hly settled between the
inhabitants II the two towns without fur
Their controversy. each party consulting
,ha, the COMMITTEES should report a Blll IN
accordance with his proposition. The
proposition was substantially this 1t
Norvay have two hlihs aud Paris three
hltb. Of thl. d,'put,d territory. The line, in
,hi. case, would follow Ihc old Eumford
Road on the North I'LL It reached the
North West corner Of the Cattle Show
.Ground thence acros. tins ground on a
line parallel 10 the Old west line, thence
south in the same direction TO the South
line Of the territory annexed 70 Norway.
TIL. proposition, offered in 'pIrit Of fair
me-. and generosity was a, once rejected.
In the course Of 'le investigation, and
near it, close. another proposition was al,o
submitted II was substantially a' follows
Tha, the whole question be- submitted to
the present Committee on Division Of towns,
who should visit the locality sometime in
May or Junc next and report 10 The next
Legislature, each party agreeing 20 abide
the result and Gcquic'cc In TIE decision
wiihou, further controversy. This promo.
siton. va. likewise REJECTED on the Tars Of
Norway
Tie investigation was thorough, and time
enough was taken to prcsent all the iuf or-
mnt facts on each side Tho Compromise
line ofI,rri a, the commencement complete
ly overthrow and demolished every argu
ment and reason stated in the Norway Re.
ii,on for thi. land. II place. ihc inhabi-
;ant. who peti,ionei 10 b. ~ % 90 Nor.
way IN that village. Il secured them IN
their ayiauiagr. Of POST Odcc. School.
and Church. II gave Norway nearly halt
che road and ample opportunity 10 expand
iar the ncI, century. But notwiths,nnd.
ius al this Norway contsndcd and attsmp-
ted 10 show that che needed room to expand.
Room 70 bulIi upon. and that the water
power in her village was great element Of
increase.
On the part Of Pari. It was shown be.
yonl all dispute that Pari. had increased
much faster than Norway during the last
ten year. that the Village Of South Paris
bad increased in much larger ratio than
Norway Village ior the sane time that
the freight Bills Of South Parr. were much
larger than those Of Norway village. that
although Norway had q water power It was
not equivalent 10 that of South Paris and
bc.iI. thi, SOUTH Paris hal another Gle.
ment Of growth superior to either, which
was the Railroad. IL was shown farther
that the water power Of Norway was not
Sufficient 20 drive the machinery already
established there. because three steam en-.
CINE. had bsen and ,rsre Golr employed u
supply the want Of water. Aud IL Vas
further shown, that the new line establish.
ell by the legislature last winter was now ~
near South Paris yIllis, as tho oil llns was
to Norway Village; aud on the suppJsiti1n
that Norway Village could not iind place.
Tor building in consequence Of the old Paris
line, ! was plainly shown that South Par.
was siill more likely to suffer for the want
OF building lots Ly the nearnes' OF the new
line.
When the hearing WI, completed, Mr..
Dunnell made an argument Of some over an
hour in length in favor OF Norway retain
ing the land. Mr. D. il Acknowledged 20
be an able advocate and has had the al.
vantage Ola large personal acquaintance.
lie made the bee, OF bic case, and made u
very satisfactory argument especially in the
opinion OF his friends. The Committee
then on Friday about 6 o'clock ADJOURNED
tll evening, at which time Mr. Baker ar.
gued the case Cor PARIS. lie presented the
facts and principal points to the Commit.
tee with great clearness and force, an
made the case appear a. !, really is.
The Committee then on that evening. re-
tired to an ante room and had private
conference, AID came to tho conclusion 20
report - Bill conforming the line between
Par. aud Norway somewhere near To the