Daily Kennebec journal., 1883-03-03
MAINE LEolSLATURE,
sEyA+E.
CONTINUED from first page.)

the House. and was passed to be engrossed,
under suspension of the rules. Subsequent
ly. on motion of Mr.. Wentworth of Penob-
scot, the vote whereby the bill was passed to
be enRrossed was reconsidered, and the> bill
was laid on the table for the purpose of
amendment.
Resolve apportioning the State for repre-
sentatives to the legislature (Which was
amended by the Senate and then recon-
mitted) came from the House passed TO be
engrossed, in Inconvenience.
Mr.. Smith of York moved that the Senate
recede from its former action, and concur
with the House.
Mr.. Kimball Of Sagadanoc said that he
trusted that the member of the Senate
would not underestimate the gravity and
Importance of the motion made by tbe
Senator from York. IL involves the dis
franchisement of one county of the State
without law or equity and in violation of the
constitution. 1t is no small thing to say to a
county that asks for simple justice, that '.al-
though you have fraction which entities
you to another representative, you shall not
have it." 1t becomes a serious matter when
one of the counties of this State is denied the
rights given her by the constitution and beg
that senators will consider the oath which
they have taken to support the constitution. 1t
will not avail anv member of this chamber
when arraigned before the bar of public
opinion to sag that he violated the constitu-
ton because the majority of the committee
violated it. That cloak is not broad or wide
enough to shield him from responsibility.
We claim that great injustice has been done
our county. Ii is fact that is admitted
without dispute even by the committee them
selves Androscoggin says kennebec has
your representative; kennebec says the same
thing of Androscoggin but neither repairs
the injustice. The committee claim that
senatorial fractions have always been con-
sidered in making the apportionment of rep
resentatives, although there is no authority
for so doing in the constitution. But it has
been the custom. Now, sir, custom how
ever ancient. if in violation of the constitution.
is Illegal, and it is to test the legality or lille
gality of this custom that this order is intro
duced. Its adoption can work no harm, but
in the contrary great good in settling forever
the proper method of appOrtlOnment- -rep
resentatives. No member of that committee,
no senator from Kennebec or Somerset coun-
ties can afford to vote for the motion of the
Senator from York.
Mr. Heath of Kennebec said that he
supposed that if the legislature was to stav
here four years, and make apportionments all
the time, some one would be dissatisfied. He
seconded the motion of the Senator from
York. that the Senate recede from its former
action and concur with the House.
Mr. Kimball: ''Sagadahoc county only
asks for her rights. She does not come here
in the character of a mendicant; she asks for
that to which she is entitled"
Mr.. Marble of Lincoln said that he had
offered an order the other day which prov ided
for a constitutional apportonment of the
State. 1t passed the Senate. but was voted
down in the House The legislature had thus
declared its intention not to make a constitu-
tional apportionment. and it would do no
good to delay matters longer.
Mr.. Weeks of Kennebec said that he had
only the kindliest feelings for Sagadahoc
county. but should vote to sustain the
ma joriiy report of the committee for these
reasons The chairman of the committee
proposed to take one representative from
Androscoggin, but was voted down two to
one. The Senate then voted to take q repre-
sentative from Kennebec to add to Saga lahoc,
but the House decided not to take a repre-
sentative from that county nor from Somer-
set. He now inquired from what county Sag
adahoc expected to get a representative.
Mr. Kimball of Sagalahoc said that it was
conceded on all sides that Sagadahoe was en-
titteu u anu ue ue-
sired to exhaust every effort to get what be-
longed to her.
On motion of Mr.. Young of Cumberland
the vote whether the Senate should recede
and concur with the House, was taken by
yeas and nays, resulting in the affirmative as
follows:
YEA.-Messrs. Bragdon, Connor, Gushee, Hask' H.,
Heath, Marble, Maxwell. Parkhurst, Smith, Taber,
Weeks, Wentworth, Weymouth. Wilson, II.
Hin lnnrn Ia knnho
Lord Mclaughlin, Nutting, Pennell, Roak, Rust,
Stearns. foung.-2
The resolve was then passed to be en-
crossed.
Senate document No. 81, bill an act for the
prevention of cruelty. was taken from the
table on motion of Mr.. Marble Of Lincoln,
who said that the bill was an unwise one. 1t
was sentimental rather than practical. He
moved its indefinite ppstponement.
Mr.. Mclaughlin of Cumberland said that
he had not expected any opposition to the bill
on the floor of the Senate. The only oppose
ton to the bill heretofore had come from men
directly interested in pigeon shooting - the
most barbarous sport in existence. If, as
has been alleged, the bill is sentimental. then
the legislature of 1875 which passed a similar
act was made up of sickly sentimen,alists.
Mr. Mclaughlin read editorial extracts from
the leading New York and Boston papers
condemning pigeon shooting. and from the
published opinions of many eminent men,
strongly denouncng the cruel sport He
read extract. from the evidence Of witnesses
who testified before a legislative committee
in Massachusetts, aud affi iavits from men in
York county who reside near grounds on
which pigeon shooting matches are held, all
uniting in stigmatizing pigeon shooting
matches as barbarous and bruializing Let
tiers have been received from all parts of the
country advocating the enactment of more
stringent law in Maine for the prevention
of cruelty. ard especially dwelling on the
pigeon shooting clause. The Boston sports
men. who are now excluded from holding
their matches in several of the New England
States. are now much exercised because they
are to be shut out of Maine, and are very
anxious that the bill shall be killed. If the
State of Maine is not on the side Of humanity,
said the speaker don't know why should
trouble myself over the passage of the BILL
II il great moral question as well as ques-
ton of humanity. because OF the demoralzing
influence of these contests upon those who
witness and participate in them. If there
was to be any opposition in the Senate to the
passage of the bill. he should like to have a
yea and nav vote on the question
Mr. Heath of Kennebec said that portions
of the bill seemed to be ambiguous. He was
fond of hunting and at proper times claimed
the right to go into the wilderness to shoot