Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1877-02-05

solve in favor OF the town of Woodland.
On motion OF Mr.. BROWN of Bowdoiuham, bill
an act TO make flee MerTymecting bridge was Ia
ken up, and, on motion Of Mr. ROGERS the bill to
make free A,row,c bridge was taken from the
table. The bills took taeir several readings IN
der Suspension OF the rules.
Mr.. ROGERS sent TO the Clerks desk a copy of the
Bath Times, under date of November, 1876, and
had read notice of the intention ofthe petitioners
to apply for act TO make Tree the bridge named
in the bills.
Mr.. BROWSE Of B3wdoinbam, moved to refer
the bills to the next Legislature with order of notice
because no such notice as required BY the statute
had been given. The bills c0n'em plated throw
ing part of the expense of the bridges therein
named upon certain towns, and a certain part upon
the county. The statute N case where the rights
OF individuals or corporations are interested re-
quiied the public alton of a true copy of the pet
ton, and if the legislation affected any town or
county, such town should have notice by the sery-
ing of one attested copy of the petition upon il,
and such county should have the same notice
served Published. lie coptended that notice
in these particulars had not been given and that
was not competent for the legislature to act in any
ether manner than in compliance with the statute.
Mr.. ROGERS took the ground that The notice
which had been read sufficient. He under
stood that II was not necessary that copy of the
petition should be served upon the town but that
notice of 1t should be published IN the count,
newspaper, which had been done
Mr.. JEwErT sald that the statute, As has been
said. provides that where the interest of A town
Is TO be affected, 1t shall be served, with true
copy of the petition, by an officer; and in the case
oil IA county, by the publication OF a true copy of
the petition in a county paper. Towns interested
have had no such notice. as required by law. This
matter had been sprung upon them, and he asked
the Chair TO rule on the question of notice.
Mr.. HISCKLEY Of Georgetown, thought the
statute had been substantially complied with
lie SAID the subject had been before the last legs-
lature at great expense, and 1t had been referred
to this legislature with order of notice. All par
ties interested had been well represented before
the committee and he did not like to have the
matter postponed on technicality. He was
ANXIOUS to have the matter decided upon lis merits
Messrs. BROWNE and JEwETT replied
The Speaker stated that in ruling upon the
question OF notice Yesterday he had invited an
appeal in order to ascertain the real sentiment of
the House upon the question. But through the
excessive good-natured forbearance of the House
the appeal was not taken. And now considering
the importance of the question: and in order that
measures which had passed the committees might
not be INSTRUCTED by the seeming arbitrary ruling
of the chair, the chair desired II understood that
IN future, as allowed by the rules all questions as
to the necessity and suficiency OF notice would
be referred directly to the House.
Mr. HAYNES thought the first question to be
decided was, whether the notice was in accordance
with the statute. If not, had the House the
right to deem that sufficient notice had been given
His opinion was that the Legislature was not tied
to the strict letter of the statute.
The question was further discussed by Messrs.
Wentworth, Stone, Pike, Rogers. Jcwett, Browne,
Wadsworth of Manchester, Robe, Lord of Ban
gor, and others.
The question was then put by the Speaker
whether sufficient notice had been given, and the
result was in the negative by a vote of 46 to 81.
The bills were then referred to the next egisa-
ture.
On motion OF Mr.. BROWN Of Hampden, the
House
Adjourned.