Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1885-01-27

MEAltNs aANf
The unanimou. opinion Of the people
Of ,hi, vicinity. and A. shown by remon-
.irarcss circulated hercabou,s. Is wholly
and ~ithou, an exception agains, making
any change IN the present si'e OF the
county buildings Eveyone Is very
much opposed 10 paying atax q from I
10 per cent. on each dollars worth OF
taxable property IN consideration OF the
saving Of few miles ,nvel 10 the Hill
or TO especially bens6, the people Of SO.
Paris. Norway and vicinity.
NORWAY, Jan. "a. 1885.
A petition Is In circulation in favor q
the change Of county baildings. BY {. !.
Whitman. The petition has Aeou, ''S
hundred .ieners. but &C understand there
!, some pmonsiranoe in the upper part
q the ,o~n There i no excitement,
and very h,lle aid aboa, !, here.
OXFORD. Jan. %. 1855.
There !. pc,i,ioa Ia circulation agAins,
moving the county buildings. Over one
hundred and iny have signed 4, There
i also a moyemcn, in favor Of moving
them. Il i though, the vote Of the
town would be agains, a change. although
Ike al questions on public Affair.". each
.iie q the case has IL. Par,isans.
wrsr PAEis. Jan. %. 1855.
Nv personal opinion ID regard 10 the
proposed removal u tho county building.
i that Il Oxford County i 10 remain a.
lis. undivided, the removal q the onuniy
builains. TO south Pan. or 'ieiaiiy would
BE- the mean, of Increasing the wealth -
the county by drawing 10 that centre
large amount q property add Inhabitants
that they can never dfa~ 10 Pans hAi'
and BE- in some measure a oonscnicncs % |
the attendant. on the courts. SC. There
h, a difference q opinion among the
people IN rsgard 20 H. an inclined 20
think ,ha, a. prcsen, vote would not BE-
favorable 20 removal The eHPcn,e seems
20 BE- the chief objection. a. expressed
Ba, would Il ~ Co the general convent
ence u Oxford County, and will u b. 10 |
the cad. o. on The whole. the greaiesi
good 10 the greatest nambsf u people
A few dollars tan ought not 20 decide
tia. matter. 10 my opinion
Elr PrEu. Jan p. 1855
I thiak ,hA, the oouniy buildings arc
better where they are. have TALKED
~i,h quite %, Of different ones. ahd
they ali ~ sgains, the ehange II ~e
.hoald take vote q ihc io~n. they
woali All. % man. ~ against The
removal. Il ~oaA make great TAI
on the people.
Ponrrr. Jaa. -. 1855
A.a ciiilsn Il Oxford Coaniy. ! do
no, feel hvorablc % changing the loca.
ton = cur county building' a. present.
aud that !. the opinion q The leading
men In ;hi. io~n, 30 f,f - have been
able % ascertain. d. not think u The
Question was submitted 20 vote q this
town there would b. ten vote. 10 favor q
moving them. The mott q the iosns
are now bardened With debit. the tan.
PAYERS arc also IN debt. and o would
nearly double our county tx AZ the est.
mate made by some. vAiiously estimated
a. A. from $4,000 20 $4,000, and 90
impor,an, bsnef, 10 b. derived from :, 20
she srea, me- oriiy u those Who pay The
tares. Ihsse western iosns must even-
iually become attached % Cumberland
/ County o. new county formed from
some Il the towns q York AID Cumber-
land. DO no, believe u necessary 20
increase our TAXATION fof the small bene-
~ ,ha, mighi ensle a. the present time
AMI that j. the opinion u most " The
tan payers Ia this ,o~n.
RoXHrEY. Jan p
A ps,i,ioa "a. sent here ZOE signature.
f1r the proposed removal. I, was eirca-
lated With the statement iha, the bearer
dil no, wish 20 sign a. lsas, until better
posted a. % cu.i. etc. No one signed
/ Il. think the vote In March woald b.
almost unanimous agains, the proposed
removal. hear rcmons,rAnee has re-
ceiysd the signature u nearly every one
70 whom il has been shown.
East SvNSEE, Jan. p.
With regard 10 the vie~. Of our ciu-
rens on the county bailding. question. !
think that can safely say ,hA, our tax
payers are NOS, decidedly opposed 10 the
proposed change. IL j. regarded scnefl-
" a. entirely unnecessary and AbsuFed.
A petition has been In the Post Ofhce
four weeks awaiting signatures in favor
Of the rsmUvAl No, = single name has
We, been affixed 10 Il. while remonsifAnoes
are black with names Of nearly every
voter In town. | have no doub, that.
With perhaps one one OF tso exceptions.
every man in ioxn j. decidedly opposed
20 the selfish A,,emp, 10 remove the build
ings and burden our taxpayers in the IN.
tercs, Of . local faction. Why no, let
well enough alone I. IL no, better TO
occupy buildings tina, are safe and CON-
Portable. than 10 crafty pride and self
iniercs, at the expense Of a burdensome
debt, Sumner will vote unanimously
Agsins, the change.
EAsT SUMNER, Jan. 81.
have your favor asking my views
abou, the proposed removal Of the county
buildings. II their removal would be for
the best convenience and interest Of the
CREATES, number. they should be moved,
otherwise not. For myself. individually.
| should be better Accommodated by the
proposed removal; bu, ] am confident
that a very large majority in this town
are better served with the building.
where they are. true, decision will
be reached iha, will be for the bes, in
teres,s Of the county as a whole.
IrCHx0 PILHs-sfnFTOns AND CUKE.
Tne symptoms are moisture. Ike perspirp- |
ton. intense itching. Increased BY scratching |
very distressing. particularly Al night, seems
- n pin.wortns we're crawling In and about
the rcctum, the private parts are sometimes
affected. N allowed a. continue very serious
rrrIfIfs fnlloM. ~WAI>f-~ OI>IME>I"