Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1874-02-27
SENATE DOCUMENT NO. 10.

To the Honorable Members ofMe LEGISLATURE
ofthe State Of Maine:
Your attention is respectfully called to see.
9, of Senate Document No. 10, being an act
to amend chap. GA, sec. Go OF The KeVised
Statutes, relating TO emhezz!ement OF the
| property of deceased persons.
! This. after passing both houses was APP
| proved by the Governor, Feb Is, 1874.
| This act has given to the heirs and creditors
of those who died since Feb. IS, 1874, the
RICH. to go back an indefinite period to trace
property embezzled from the deceased.
But the land of those who died PRIOR to that
date is not only .heltcrless against all VINO
have plundercd it in the past, but may be
plundered at will hereafter and can never be
inquired into.
Now if those who happened to die before Feb
1s, 1864, have no right to their real estate why
not forbid their heirs and creditors examining
the Registry Of Deeds for past conveyances,
as we'll as forbid their examining suspected
thief for past embellishments. Consistency,
thou art jewell"
Revised Statutes chap. 81. sec. 60, provides
simply that any one suspected OF embezzilng
the personal property of deceased person,
may be cited before the Judge of Probate and
examined on oath in relation thereto.
The amendment which has now become a
law merely provides the same remedy against
those who embezzle real estate.
The original act was made to apply equally
to embellishments from persons dead when
the act was passed, and persons dying after
its passage (see chap. lis, Public Laws OF
1859 The legislature had not then discov-
cred the difference between robbing the dead
of yesterday and the dead of to-day.
But the second section of the present act
singularly provides that whoever has embez-
zled the land of one dying before Feb. is,
1874 (the date of the approval OF the act)
shall not even be examined as to the DISPOSE
ton of the property he still fraudulently with
holds from its owners.
Why do the Legislature ofls74 depart from
the steps of the Legislature of 1859?
Since no remedy existed before, either In
law or equity, and some remedy was needed
against those who had embezzled the land of
one who died Feb. IS, 1874, was none needed
against those who had embezzled the land OF
one who died Feb. II, 1874? But your law
has given it to the one, and denied it to the
other.
| A is large creditor of b. B dies Feb. Is,
1874. His estate is wholly in landed property
and C has embezzled it all. A has but one
remedy at law or equity 1t is under the first
section of the present act. But if b had died
one day earlier, the second section of the same
act would leave the creditor remediless. Did
gentlemen of the Legislature sufficiently scru-
tinize this remarkable section? Were they
really aware that the Legislative power was
being thus used as cloak for fraud and theft,
and did they really intend to legalize the
plunderer of yesterday, by the same act in
which they condemn the plunderer of to-day 7
| Your law says to offenders against one who
dies after the approval of the act, beware ! for
if you have ever embezzled land of his, you
shall be called to an account, though it were
done fifty years before the passage OF the act !;
but if you can find one who died prior to that
date, steal on and take your fill, for you shall
be protected not only in what you have stolen
in the past, but in what you may steal in the
| future.
Are gentlemen ready to leave this as mon
ument to the justice and intelligence of the
Legislature of 1874 or shall the heirs and
creditors of persons dying before the approval
Of this act have the same rights against fraud
and theft, as the heirs and creditors Of those
dying after such approval. The innocent can
not suffer By the change. Did you meaa to
pass law which should shield none but the
guilty? o. d. B.