Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1895-11-22
THE WARD LINES
Ut City of WaterviIIe Once
More Bob Up in Court.
Hearing at Bangor Before Chief JUS
tice Peters, in the Matter.
Democrats Dissatisfied With Work Of Commits.
sion Appointed by Legislature.

A>oN' -tSpeCldlD. - ne attcn
ton of Chief Justice Peters was occupied.
this forenoon, with the hearing on
the Watervillc city ward line mat.
ter, which was submitted to him
by the commissioners appointed by
Gov. Clcayes TO redistrict the wards
In that city. The matter was. UNI
til recently, supposed to be settled. await
ing the approval or disapproval of His
Honor, but, short time ago the Demo
Gratis OF WatCrsille asked for another hear
ing, which Vas granted. and the date of
the same fixed for today. at 10 A. NJ.
A large number of the politicians of
both parties came over on the forenoon
train for the hearing, which took place in
publicans was Hon. f. f. Webb and w.
Z. PhilbrOok, and Hon. G. f. johnson
appeared for the Democrats.
The hearing commenced with the read
ing of the special act of the Legislature of
1895, chapter 241, which provided for the
proposed change. He followed this by
reading in full the report made to Chief
Justice Peters by the commission. which
consisted of Hon. Seth NJ. Carter, Hon.
Charles NJ. Moses and Hon Isaiah X
Stctson, and was signed by those men
He then moved the acceptance of the re
port.
AT this point Mr.. johnson objected and
proceeded to explain to the court his rca-
sons for opposing the action, and the pass
ing of the motion. He claimed first that
the special act of 1926 was an Interference
by the Legislature in the municipal affairs
of the city of Waterville and said that he
believed that the bill was framed making
condition of it read that the matter
should be submitted to the chief justice
for his approval" for the purpose that
His Honor might pass on it as "A constitu-
tional act or not
Mr.. johnson then read from the Public
Laws of 1898, the act which required that
in case the ward lines of city were to be
changed, the voters of said city should
vote on the question ut the municipal cleo
ton. and in order for the change to be
made, majority Of the legal registered
voters must vote in the ALTERNATIVES; he
could see no reason why Waterville should
be singled out as an exceptional case
He claimed that when the Governor ap-
pointed the commission it was expected of
the men composing it to give personal at
tention to the whole matter of dividing
the wards but, he claimed, in this case
the division was made by partisan city
committee for partisan reasons, and that
the commission did not give their personal
attention to the new division
He also claimed that the Democrats of
Watervillc were denied hearing before
the committee OF the Legislature when the
bill was first presented there, that they
were denied n hearing at the meetings of
the commission in Waterville, last sum
mcr, and so had come before the chief
justice to be heard by him in the court of
justice, where politics are not supposed to
be considered.
He repeated, to make more emphatic
that be thought that if change was to be
made it should have been submitted to the
voters of Watervillc and not placed in the
hands of an outside commission
He then submitted a new plan of the
city Of Waterville on which was marked
the boundaries of the wards in case a
change was to be made at all. Mr. John
sons whole talk was Il claim that the
Democrats of Watervillc had been in this
matter ignored. not consulted and were to
have the sceptcr of power torn from them
forever
n. II. Croweil, ex-city marshal, was
sworn, and, examined by Mr.. johnson.
testified: Have been a resident of Water
vile Is years; have canvassed the city
many times for political, school militia
and other purposes; made canvass, last
on account OF the proposed change
IN the ward lines; made it by blocks as
was made by the Republican enumcrator.
Mr.. Dunn; the work was not completed
1t the time of the final meeting of the
did not make any report 10
-he commission at that meeting Witness
iidn't remember when he commenced or
finished the work.
His figures differed from those made by
Mr.. Dunn, as follows: In Ward !. he
round 2l7 voters; Ward 2, Els; Ward 3.
2s2; Ward T. 291; Ward 3. 2s7; Ward 6.
947; Ward 7, 279 The figures submitted
~ Mr. Dunn We're: Ward /. 231; Ward
,. 25l, Ward 3, 256; Ward 4, 276; Ward
J, 2Si Ward 6, ESQ; Ward Z. 263. Witness
made a thorough house to house canvass |
Questioned by Mr. Webb Mr. Crowell |
cstified: Was present AT the first meeting
II the commission Fred Pooler. chairman |
II the Democratic city committee. was al |
20 present. Think it was near first Of July |
when first meeting was held. Was present |
IT the final hearing Aug ~; both Demo |
rats and Republicans were present AT |
hat time
Witness heard Mr. johnson make an ar
gument before the commission Mr.. |
Brown, Mr. johnson and others decided |
lot to put the book witness had used in |
making his canvass, in before the commits |
ion. Witness understood at that time |
hat Mr. Dunn had made a canvass. Wit
less didn't know Of any delay being asked |
or by the Democrats for further hearing |
At first meeting witness heard the COM
nissioners ask for both the Democrats and |
he Republicans to submit plans for a
hange in the ward lines. The Democrats
lid not submit any new plan but proposed
o let the wards remain as they were.
In reply to Mr. johnson. Mr.. Crowell /
aid that while taking the census he took
lote Of the politics of the voters in the
Iifferent wards rs far as be knew, and
cad the figures, which showed five Repub-
lean wards and two Democratic wards.
Continued on page e.