Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1895-03-21

About two-thirds of this, 1915, was paid
by the resident Taxpayers of Sullivan,
outside of Waukeag Neck, increasing the
rate of taxation for 1890 from 81 mills, to
10 mills in 1891, and the same in 1892.
This increase carried the poll taxes from
ESQ to 80, and hence increased the taxes
of every resident of Sullivan.
Under the existing condition of things,
would any sane business man have asked
for an especial appropriation for Sorrento
or any other part of the town with the
least hope of carrying it? 1t came from
outside of them. We paid the taxes,
but this same year they asked for
special appropriation of $500, and it was
voted down. Our reason for voting
against 1t is readily found in the facts
given. We think, under all the clrcum-
stances, we were justified in doing it.
In 1892, after two hearings by the State
assessors, we We're given reduction OF
S150,0O0 in our town valuation. This still
left S67, 900 of valuation by the State for
State and county taxes i'll excess of the
entire valuation by town assessors. On
this sum the town paid ~ mills, equal to
:3o1, for each of the years of 1893 and 1894
making for both years 800, wholly and
totally on account of our liberal valua-
ton of real estate at Sorrento. These
acts We're confirmed by the testimony of
State Assessor Burleigh, and are part of
the record of said committees dolngs-
and yet they charge us with being mig
gardly! These two sums together max
ing the nice little sum of II AL, which the
taxpayers of Sullivan, exclusive of Sor-
rento, have been obliged to pay on ac-
count of our liberalty to Sorrento in
four years. Under this state of things
would you not naturally expect the town
| to reject another request for special APP
preparations? Were not the voters justl-
| fled in not voting to tax themselves more
under the circumstances? They would
have done the same thing for any special
appropria ion in any part of the town,
and their refusal to do 50 for Sorrento is
no evidence of animosity or niggardli-
ness. The quiet, accomplishing way IN
which this excessive tax was paid, is
rather strong evidence of their fixed in
tention to be liberal with the Sorrento
| tax payers.
Mr.. Simpson then went on to explain
the system upon which the town of Sulli-
van divided the burdens for roads and
| bridges, and stated the mileage in each
section of the town, showing that in
/ this respect, as in others, Sorrento had
been treated not only justly, but with
| generosity.
| Continuing, he said | think that |
! have shown that there was no luminosity,
/ no evidence of divided community, no
unfair treatment in any way; and hence
we come to the same conclusion that the
committee dd-that the petitioners had
/
division; that the town should not be
! divided.
We will now consider the question of
he claimed improvements which Will
be made on Waukeag Neck if the town
is divided. There are only two ways by
which improvements can be made one IS
by taxation, the other by subscription. If
by su description, why not do it now? The
town does not interfere The town does not
tax roads or parks. II by taxation (Which
they deny) the same result can be reached
by village corporation, and it is not
double taxation, for, if divided, the new
town will have to pay State and county
tax. They will have to support their
poor and schools, and pay their Incl
dental expenses, just as they do now in
the town of Sullivan. And if they desire
to pay for improvements, they mus,
either su bscribe to do it or tax the prop
erty to do it. This right they could have
by corporation charter, and it is just anc
right.
But if new town is made and they
vote to tax the town, as they can easily
do as anyone who witnesses their contro
of this legislature must admit, ther
what W III become of the poor native res
idents who will be subject to tax fol
such improvements as this company pro
poses? Is it not plain that they will bt
taxed to death, that they will lose theil
little homes? If this should even be the
( purpose Oh the SUCCESSORS Vi lllS TTeiCH'
mans Bay Land Co., the State OF Maine
would become party to this scheme to
destroy the natives in the interest o.
organized wealth. Will the State do it
Mr.. President, l have detained you much
longer than 1 ought. The division of {
town is rather small matter for the
great State of Maine. We can all endure
the toot hache without a wry face, pro
vided the tooth is in some one else's
mouth; so we can calmly divide the town
in which we do not live. When our town
is to be divided, we kick as long as kick
| ing Is possible.
In conclusion | have only to say that
the Sorrento enterprise commenced as g
money making scheme. 1t is continued
for the same purpose. Is it wise for he
State of Maine to adopt new policy OF
sacrificing the people; of dividing towns
simply to assist the managers OF those
schemes? If such policy is announced
the people of the shore GOWNS all along
the coast of Maine viii! know What Il
expect. Innumerabl divided and one
horse towns will be the result. III il
not be wise to pause before we take sucl
Il step or adopt such suicidal policy?
The idea of creating at this late day IN
he nineteenth century new town OF
100 in hn bitants in the interests ard at the
request of rich corporation for selfish
purposes, is farce too ridiculous to be
seriously entertained. The legislators oil
he State OF Maine VIII never DO IL unless
persuaded by lobby hat pervades every
nook and corner of this House, giving
members instructions how to vote, all al
the expense Of the gentleman from Nea
Hampshire.
Who is the real petitioner in this case
| have lived in the town for sixty foul
years and am familiar with every person
in it, and | never heard a whisper OF I
desire to have the town divided. The
first notice | had Of this matter was tn,
publication of the Legislative notice il
/ he Hancock county paper. Gentlemen
his is snap game!
MIR. simpson proceeded to show now
t he petitions were obtained, and stated
that the vote of the town meeting did no
show the actual state OF feeling on The
matter, as many did not vote. He read {
letter from some of he petitioners, stating
that they had signed under misappre
hension, and desired to withdraw thei
laIal