The Portland daily press., 1891-03-17
RELIGION and THE REFORM SCHOOL.
Animated Hearing Before the Leg
lsIatIve Committee.
How Judge Hamilton May Be Dis
pensed With.
Movement to Secure Uniformity in
Certain Laws.
Especial to the Press

Especial to the Press
AUGUSTA, March 16.-The Reform Schoo
| committee this evening gave hearing on
| the question of religious instruction in the
| Reform School. The bill before the commit.
tee would permit the clergy or priests of any
| sect or church to administer the sacraments
eff such sects or churches at the school.
Representative Chadbourne of Biddeford,
who introduced the bill. was the first speak
or. He said he introduced the bill because
he thought it was right and fair, but IL he
was wrong he was willing to be convinced
He believed that some measure should be
enacted to permit Catholic priests to admin
lister the sacraments of their church to Cath.
olic boys in the institution.
Judge w. w. Bolster, fer the trustees, de-
scribed some of the regulations under which
the institution Is operated, including the by
law regarding religious instruction. Judge
Bolster regretted that this bill had been in.
troduced. In making their objection to ii
the trustees were not opposing the request
because it was that of the Catholic church,
but because they believed that 1t was de-
mand of a kind which could not be enter
tained as affecting state institution, no
matter from what source in came. 1t met
with the united opposition of the Protes-
tants of the state, and woIld also be opposed
by a large number of Catholics.
de explained at length the relationship of
the state to the boys in the reform school
ana the duties that this relationship in.
cluded.
Reu. DIR. N. It. Whitaker of Portland. for
committee of the Protestants clergymen of
Portland and vicinity, representing 670,O0O
Protestants. DR.. Whitaker spoke at length
on the distinctive doctrines of the Catholic
church under which their views of what was
ri 10 &c
testants. he protested against the passage
OF the bill because there is no necessity for
it, due provision having been
made for the teaching Of the
general principals of religion; because
the bill would work injury to the principal
object OF the school, the reformation of juve-
nile offenders; because the bill would lead to
the use OF state funds for sectarian purposes
In order to provide the necessities for the
administering OF the sacraments of various
churches; because the bill, by permitting the
sac aments, would establish churches at the
Reform school; because the DILL is un-Amer-
lean, requiring sectarian classification of
the school; because the bin violates
the provision of section 3, srtics
l Of the Constitution of the state which for
bids that ore sect shall be given preference
over another; because the bill is seditious
In tendency and might lead to bitter feeling;
because the bill opens the way for the sup
port OF denominational schools and the de-
because the bill removes the care of the in
mates from the trustees to clergymen, who
are irresponsible.
Much of the evenings discussion was
largely informal, being participated in by
Messrs. White of Bangor and Callahan of
Lewiston, Senator Rogers, Rev. Mr.. Randall,
Hon. Albion Little and Superintendent Far
rington.
Removal by Address.
The York county delegation has decided to
advance two methods and let the Legislature
choose by which, If by either, it desires to
take action in the case of Judge Hamilton Of
the Biddeford Municipal Court One of
these two methods is to abolish the court
and at the same time establish new one; or
In other words, by declaring that the court
has ceased to exist to leglslate Judge Hamil-
ton out of office. The second plan Is to pro-
ceed by address, method authorized by the
constitution and differing from an impeach-
ment trial in that it requires two-thirds
vote of each House for the adoption of an
address to the Governor by which the CHIEF |
is directed TO remove the person |
against whom the address Is made The |
chief objection to this mode of procedure |
against Judge Hamilton is the length of time |
II would consume late in the session when
many important matters are demanding at
tention and the members of the general
court are anxious to finish legislative duties
and devote some time to their private affairs.
When the adoption of an address was
mentioned in connection with this case, it
was found that few even among the MEM
bers Of the legal profession were familiar
with the details of such proceeding. Moth
ing OF the kind has been done in the Maine
Legislature since the days before the war.
1t was in 1856, when Samuel Wells of Port
ana vas Lot M MoTr p5es
land speaker of the House, that this means
was adopted to remove from office Judge
woodbury. Davis of Portland, one of the
justices of the Supreme Judicial Court. The
charges which led to the addressing" of
Judge Davis from the bench were of a very
different character from the accusations
made against Judge Hamilton. Judge
Davis was removed because he declined to
recognize as sheriff man who was held by
the Legislature to be the legal incumbent of
that office. In the next year, however, there
was a change of administration. Hon.
Hannibal Hamlin was elected governor and
Judge Davis was re-app0inted to the
Supreme Bench serving until his resignation
In 1865 There Is no point of resemblance
between the cases of Judge Davis aud Judge
Hamilton except in this procedure
by address adopted in the one case
and proposed IN the other. A review of the
proceedings in the Davis case therefore will
show how the legislature would 20 to work
to investigate the Hamilton matter, and If
the accusations were sustained, take action
for the removal of the Judge. In the Senate,
on March 10Th, 1856, Mr.. Barnes of Cumber-
land introduced resolutions formulating the
charges against Judge Davis, and beginning
as follows:
Resolved, After due notice given accord
ing to the constitution, the Senate will pro-
ceed to consider the adoption of an address
TO the governor for the removal of Wood
bury Davis for the causes following"
A statement of the causes is then incorpo-
rated IN the resolutions, after which it Is
further resolved
That copy of the same be served upon
the said Woodbury. Davis by such person as
the President of the Senate shall appoint for
that purpose, who shall make return of such
service upon his personal affidavit without
delay. And that Friday, the 28th day of the
present month, at 8 o'clock In the forenoon,
be assigned as the time when the said Wood
hury Davis may be admitted to hearing in
his defence"
The resolutions were adopted and trans
mitted to the House on the next day, and the
House concuIred with the Senate. On March
81, William G. Clark, secretary Of the Sen
Judge Davis. and on the same day Mr. Clark
made affidavit that he had performed that
duty. Three days later, on March Oath,
Judge Davis asked that his hearing might be
postponed In order to give time for the pre-
paration of his defence, and on March 25th
the purpose, recommended that the hearing
be postponed to April 4. which was done.
The next step came on March 81, when, on
the proposition of the Senate, a Joint COM
mittee was agreed to by the two Houses for
the purpose of hearing the case and joint
committee raised to determine the order of
proceedings. This committee reported on
April 2, as follows:
1-For the purpose of granting Joint hearing,
agreeably to the vote OF the two branches, they
will meet in convention in the hall of the House
of Representatives on Friday, the 4th instant at
8 O'Clock In the forenoon.
2-The President of the Senate will preside.
3-The respondent may be heard for himself or
by counsel.
4-Affidavits or written statements may be
made part of the defence and only such shah be
admitted.
5-NO debate whatever shall be admitted In the