Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1889-02-09

structure in the nature OF fence gnaScessa
rily exceeding SIX feet iG height. maileiousl.
erected or maintained for the purpose of An
moving the owners ur occupants of adjoining
property shall be deemed private naissaee
The mere reading of the bill sss sufficient L
show that il attempts by legislation an inno-
vation so far as the use of property is con
+ eerned. He Questioned the constitutional
power of the legislature to pass such su act
d and also the Propriety of such legislation.
1t would tor the first time Introduce into the
. question of rights in private property, the
element of the intent With which a msn ex-
ercises certain rights in the way OF erecting
structure upon h. own land, right which
hitherto had never been Questioned. Ii was
4 another case where the facts of particular
: case had lead to an attempt to remedy the
by unwise legislation. The righ, of any per
son TO erect upon h own pre- structures
not devoted te improper uses, and not dam
gerous by reason of character, has slways
been recognized. IL was undoubtedly true
that the owner of property iyht use il IS 10
eyiuce an unneighboriy feeling, or annoy in
some degree his neighbor. But was il we'll
10 attempt by legislation 10 control the feel
ing or uuueighbofly acts in a c9mmunit,
which expressed themselves in u line which
had been recognized as legal ever since
private property bad been held in land? The
DILL attempts 10 deal ith single use OF prop
erty-the erection of fences. He did not
suppose there was large town or city in the
State where fef ces wouli not be found COM
ing within the pusview of the measure. He
coutended that the attempt by legislation to
Introduce the element of purpose which lhe
owner has in view in making an erection,
9th, rwise legal, upon his property, was Ger
tatnly going 10 the extreme OF legislative
power, and he believed far beyond ii. The
result would be TO put before the courts
another bill which would finally be declared
| unconstitutional as interfering improperly
with the rights of private property. He
knew no pr .yious act which had ate nptei
to define what use of pro Derty, combined
with an intent, shall constitute a private |
nuisance. If this were public nuisance
and not special aud private, undUubtedl, !
under the police power of the government,
1t woule be competent for the legislature To
deal with it.
Mr.. Wright of oxford supported the bill
which he said had been reported
from the Committee on Legal AfIrs
alter careful consideration. In the
committee room many instances hal been
cited where fences had been erected for the
purpose of annoying neighbor VINO had no
remedy, and the committee thought il right
that there should be some legislation. II
recalled case in which he had been con
suited within the past six months, of two
neighbors owning houses but two or three
rods apart, who got into difficulty, and for
no other reason than spite one OF them
erected a fence 10 feet high Just within the
line of his land and extended so as TO
shut of to his neighbor the view of the road
in that direction. That was done in pure
,ult "A tka l.,i1 lal IL,
only such cases and applied simply to fences
While the State had not gone perhaps to
the extent of declaring wha, shall be a
private nuisance, there was statute which
gave parties injured by public or a private
nuisance, remedy in an acton for DAMAGE,
but an offense of the kind here could not be
construed a nuisance unless the statute SO
declared, because at present a man has a
right 10 put fence upon his own land. lie
was unable TO see where there could be any
hardship from the enactment of such a lsw.
Mr.. Libby replied.
MIR. Wal on of Somerset hoped the bill
would not pass. In his ju1gmt Mt the effect
of would be TO promote litigation. The
trouble was that when every glslstor took
his gripsack and started for the Capital, he
came loaded with all sorts of projects de-
sired by his constituents. He knew that
from experience. This principle had been
carri, d so far that our statut have come to
look ike a crazy guilt. In this case some
iy'dSlhed T04n,B"!1 t4ae" p apa Tav q-.!sx
He thought it time to stop tins kind of iegis-
laton, and moved to indetinit, ly postpone
the bill, and called for a yea and nay vote
" lich was ordered
The bill was indefinitely postponed as fol-
lows;
YEA.-Austin. Freeman, Frot, Haiue Harding.
Hill. iiiuckty, iioibrooS, Hun, hendail, Libby,
Lord oil Nurk Nash, Poor, RIA al, Nanun.--l6-
NAY collins, Dngg'tI, Heath, Aiekels, Ryder
simpsou, Wight.
ABSENT on Nor orINo. Burgess, BurriI, CLARK,
Lori OF Pensobeot. Mr4, III, sargent, sleeper, Walk
er.-s.
So the bill was in definitely postponed
SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT.
The motion to reconsider the vote refus-
ing IA passage TO the bill to restrict the sale OF
tobacco came up by special assignment, aud
the vote refusing the measure passage was
reconsidered
Mr.. Wright of oxford moved to amend
by striking out all after the enacting clause
and inserting the followin, in lie thereof
Sec. / No person shall sell any cigarette
to any person under the age of l6 years
See 2 No person other than the minors
parent or guardian shall give to any person
under the age of l6 years any cigarette for
such minors personal use.
Sec 3. Any person violating any of the
foregoing pruvis Uns shall be punished by
tine not exceeding $50
MIR. Wright SAID 1t seemed to him That lAe
substitute VAS ali that the friends OF the bill
could reasonably ask and he was satisfied
from conversations with petitioners for the
law, that they would be content with it it his
amendment should be adopted. lie also be |
heved that it would satisfy the public demand i
and give better satisfaction to the people |
generally.
Mr.. LIBBY of Cumberland opposed the |
amendment lie did not know what
communication the last speeches had had
with the petitioners; but his information
/ from them since the last vote was taken, was
that they preferred TO have no bill unless /
they could have the penalty for sm Alhs by
minors under II years in public places. If
/ the pray er of tine petition rs was to be grant
ed ii should be in the form they desired. lie
did not knoS that he would strenuouhy OBJ
! ject If the Senate passed no bill, but if it
Vas to iegislate upon The subject, then 1t
should be leg station that would b.
ehectaai Tue title Of The bill
proposed as an amendment should
| be ian act 70 impose additional bardens upon
shop kee per- and 10 encourage the smoking
| OF cigar ties by minors under lt years IN
public places" This in his opinion would
be the effect Of the legislation. IL would be
utterly powerle.s to effect the purposes OF
the petitioners without the clau.e with refer
euce to smoking in public places, and for
this reason he deemed It his duty to vote
against it.
Mr. Wright 5ontended that the bill with
the psSslty clause would not prevent the evil
because under 1t boy over IL could buy
cigarettes and give them to his comrades OF
IA or Is years who could go to some secret
place and smoke all they desir d. SO the
bill really did not accomplish TIA purpose Of
the petitioners any more than the substitute
He said that il the substitute adopted
the law would be as etectual against the sale
Of cigarettes a. the prohibitory iaw is sgsins
the sale Of liquor. lie NOV, d that the ques-
ton be taken by yea and nay vote
Mr.. Libby replied
Mr.. Dsggett of Piscatquis was surprised
7 that any Senator should think fgr moment
that the bill was compliance with the
prayer Of the petitioners after the fret
amendment was maze to sect OF one. H
u had made some igqd.ry and examination,
. I and he found u was he unanimous voice OF
the petitioner. thai the sale of tobacco in all
its forms -hOulc b. restricted. and prohioi