The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1893-03-16

m0ntS DY corporations. NOW IL
this bill under discussion was
just and reasonable, MI. Morrill, con-
| tended that the request of these %, 900
| citizens should be needed If the bill
did not commend itself to the legislators
as just and reasonable, he would be the
last man to urge its passage. This bill
| gave to labor unions in the matter OF
protection what the present law gave to
| individuals. An individual could pur
| sue man who counterfeited his trade
mark and recover compensation from
the courts. The labels and trade marks
of the trades unions were of great value
| to them. These unions were formed for
| benefcent purposes. Their members
were banded together for the purpose of
bettering their condition, of uplifting
| themselves and their families wherever
| the unions existed, it was recognized
that the product of their members was
of high grade. Take for instance the
cigar makers union. Cigars were made
by convict labor and there was con-
slant temptation for dealers selling these
cheap cigars to give them an appearance
of respectability by counterfeiting the
| blue label used to designate the high
grade goods made by members of the
cigar makers unions. Mr. Morrill,, to
1 show the esteem in which labor unions
have been held in other states, read
| from the opinions of the courts there,
extracts referring to the organizations.
| He said that in other states legislation,
such as this asked for here, had been
enacted. Maine, instead of being true
to her motto and leading the way in this
matter, was about the last of the states
| to enact such measure as this.
| As to the point made by Mr.. Higgins
| I, IL, ole ,irr1,& 1,ay
the present law. Mr.. Morrill, said that
the present law had been declared by
| eminent lawyers to be not applicable to
| the case of labor unions as these unions
/ in Maine were not tho sole users of the
labels, which were issued by their CEN
/ tral bodies, and neither were they cor
porations under the term of this law.
This was matter Of sentiment as well
as of right. 1t reminded Mr. Morrill, of
the history of the Republican party, a
party which had perhaps done more for
the laboring man than any party the
world had ever seen. He recalled that
that party had freed a whole
race of workingmen and placed
the right of suffrage in their
swart hands. He believed that the bill
under discussion would commend itself
| to majority of the Democrats of the
House and he hoped that the Republi-
can members would be true to their
partv's past record in the matter, In
closing, Mr.. Morrill, said again that he
made no appeal for the bill unless it COM
mended itself to the Judgment of the
members.
Mr.. Scott of Patten, also spoke for the
| bill and in the dry way which always
amuses his fellow members, referred to
the opposition of Mr.. Higgins, saying
that while the legal affairs committee
did not lay claim to the knowledge of the
law concentrated in the person of the
judiciary committee, still the legal affairs
committee was made up of eight lawyers
of good standing at the bar and two
other men of good business judgement
and they had not reported this bill until
they had given it careful attention. The
bill had been drawn by one of the .ablest
| lawyers in the state. The gentleman
! from Limerick had said that the bill con-
tained dangerous features but he had not
4 pointed out wherein the committee had
erred so that they might correct their
fault.
Following Mr.. Scott, Mr.. Spillane
/ spoke. He said the law was the same as
was unanimously passed in Illinois, and
he had received information that the
Massachusetts, legislature would pass the
bill.
Mr.. Higgins, in reply, said that the
| provisions of the act were illegal, extra
ordinary and infamous. The present
| law was sufficient. Indications of a
trade or occupation were not trademarks
| The bill was piece of class legislation.
| Why should this particular class be Sc
lected? He respected the laboring man,
but the laboring man had not tried to
get the protection of the present law.
| This bill gave trial justices the right to
! issue iniunctions, and was the only law
| that had ever given them such powers
| Whoever heard the like? Mr.. Higgins
| did not believe that the working men of
| the country would ask the wreck and
| ruin of anv one. Under this bill, ire
| sponsible members of labor unions could
do great wrong. He denied that this
| was copy of the Illinois law 1t was
| the Illinois act with the safeguards left
| out.
Mr.. Brown of Wateryille said there
wasn't an intimation in the bill that a
trial justice has the right to issue an in
| junction. He didn't see anything wrong
| in the bill.
The bill then passed, there being no
considerable opposition manifested, an
amendment offered by Mr.. Higgins to
| provide for the punishment of perjury
committed in connection with the law
was adopted.
| About Co-Insurance.
| All winter long, the insurance COM
mittee has been struggling with the
| question of co-insurance and finally as
result of many hearings and much dis
cussion, they reported bill which Sem
| ators Swanton and Holman this morning
| said did not mean anything. This bill
was as follows:
Gail contracts of fire insurance written
upon property in this state shall cover
| the actual loss or damage not exceeding
the amount insured except in such cases
where it shall be otherwise agreed in
| writing by the assured"
Mr.. Swanton to this bill offered an
| amendment to insert provision that
| "all insurance contracts shall state the
| value of the property insured"
Senator Hersey agreed with Senators
| Swanton and Holman that the amend
| ment was wise ono. Mr.. Hersey told
| the Senate of the insurance committees