The Portland daily press., 1893-03-30


| by wealthy man who had been greatly
prejudiced against Catholics. If the
| petitions served in Gardiner were to be
taken as a sample of the petitions re-
ceived from the people ON this SUBJECT
| they were entitled to little weight.
man came to Gardiner and secured names
to petitions on the representation that
| the amendment was one to prevent the
use of state money to build Catholic
| churches and schools. He contended
| further that this matter had been pre-
sented here this winter by paid lobby.
| Did senators suppose that gentleman
| spent large part of the winter here in
| the interest of this measure without be-
ing paid for it? Did they suppose that
| Judge Symonds came here from Portland
and argued is case for nothing? Mr..
Spear argued that it was the duty of the
| legislature to examine carefully the
| claims of schools and decide in what
| direction it was wise and proper to eX-
pend state money in their aid. He asked
| if anybody had ever heard charges
against the schools which received state
| aid. Why the Rev. Matt Hughes told the
| committee and Mr.. Spear said he heard
him make the statement, that Kents
| Hill was school intended primarily to
proselyte and secondarily to teach. Mr..
| Spear stood here to refute this state
ment. Mr.. Hughes should have better
| informed himself before he made it.
Did Judge Symonds Or any other gentle
man show one case wherein the aid of
the state to schools had been abused?
Mr.. Spear said that the constitution
now gave to the legislature the right to
aid educational institutions as the public
| good may require. He wanted to know
| if any Senator wanted to deprive the
legislature of this power
| Mr.. Spear quoted from article S of the
| constitution and argued that it's provis-
ion that money devoted to educational
| institutions should be granted only to
such as the legislature deemed worthy
| Afforded sufficient protection. Mr.. Spear
| said he heard Hon. J. w. Symonds say
before the committee that the burden of
proof was on those who demanded the
change. Mr.. Spear claimed that the case
! had not been made out. That no proof
had been advanced. Mr.. Spear said the
time had not come when these schools in
the back districts and along the coast of
| the state could exist without state aid.
/ Then the Question was ''Do You want
! to strike them down?' There was no
distinction in the teaching of these
schools because of their sectarian char
acter. The institution at Kent's Hill,
notwithstanding the stab that institu-
tlon had received from one Of it's men,
beers, was in no way different from the
teaching at Westbrook Seminary, down
near Portland.
Mr.. Seiders said he wished to repudi-
ate absolutely the statement that there
had been paid lobby here in the inter-
est of this measure. That was not SO.
1t was the first time that he had heard
the charge made by any person or by any
party that paid lobby had been here
for any purpose this winter. This mat
ter had been before the legislature for
five weeks with nobody in particular to
look after it. Mr.. Seiders himself had
received letters from friends of the
measure, urging that something should
be done. He presumed that Judge Sy-
monds. when he appeared before the
committee, received some compensation
as it was proper every attorney should
who came here to advocate measures be-
fore committees. But did the senator
suppose that the Rev. Matt Hughes re-
ceived compensation for his appearance
before the committee? Mr.. Seiders had
thought that the appearance Of Mr..
Hughes, a member of an influential re-
ligious body, in favor Of this amendment
would have great weight in it's favor.
said in his opening remarks, that if ap-
preparations were to be made for these
schools, he should vote for all alike OF
whatever denomination. Mr.. Soldiers
was aware that there was central body
in New York supporting this movement
but he called attention to the fact that
this movement in Maine was under the
charge of state league and Maine was
not the first state to take this step.
Thirty-three had already done so.
Mr.. Spear reiterated the statement
that there had been paid lobby here in
favor of this amendment, and in support
of that said that he had been told by an
Augusta gentleman whom he knew to be
telling the truth, that that gentleman
had been approached and offered money
to work for this measure. That offer was
made by gentleman who had been here
in the interest of the amendment. Mr..
Spear said he would not give the gentle
mans name.
Mr.. Herrick said, in his mind, the
whole scope of the question was con-
tanned in proposition whether the peo-
pie should have an opportunity to be
heard on the matter. If the petitions re-
ceived represented sufficient number of
the people who desired to be heard on
the matter, then he thought it should be
| submitted TO them. with CnaC unQer-
standing he should vote for the resolve.
The question was then taken on the
final passage of the resolve, which Of
course required two thirds vote.
The resolve failed of a passage, II to
II.
Those who voted yes were: Senators
Coffin, Cook, Grindle, Herrick, Holman,
jackson, Mallet, Seiders, Swanton,
Thatcher and Wood
Those who voted no were: Senators
Allan, Clark, Hersom, Hill, Libby,
Lyons, Mayo, Nickerson, Spear, Spofford,
Winslow.
The House insisted on its action of this
forenoon and asked for a committee of
conference. The Senate acceded and
Senators Hill, Libby, and Winslow, Rep
resentatives Higgins, Bird and Ferguson.
were appointed that committee.
The conference resulted in the chang
ing of the manner of killing the measure
for this year by referring it to the next
legislature.
The following are the resolves the Sen
ate voted down.
Constitutional Amendment.