Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1895-03-15

THE BOVININE CO.. NEW YORK.
county. l agree with the senator from
Washington that this law should be equi-
table, but submit to you that there Is nc
| Justice in this amendment. The county
Of Hancock came here with solid delega-
ton in favor of the 10M-inch law We
concluded that it was better that the can
ming industry should suffer, if need be,
for the general public good, and so every
representa- tive in both branches OF the
Legislature came here with the under
standing that we should support the l019-
inch law. The proposition now comes
| from Washington county to crush out the
canning industry in Hancock, and still
| continue to operate in Washington, and
they will come across our borders and take
our short Holsters, which we are not al
! lowed to touch. Now, we say that that
is not q fair proposition, and that it has
not that friendliness between two adjacent
counties which is desirable.
The speaker went on to say that the
| lobster canning was only a very small
part of the canning industry of the State,
and mentioned the case of one firm which
had given it up voluntarily, and entered
into written agreement with the fisher
me-. not to operate their factory for year,
making to themselves 10E-inch law. He
said that the result of this was that the
fishing improved, and it seemed to him.
therefore, that the 10 inch law would be
protective measure, and would improve
the fishing He agreed with the senator
IL: 10, oh lf,I n6 RI l.nrI
his own county, and said that Hancock
had no quarrel with Washington, but he
asked if Hancock had done aught that
would justify her canning industries be
ing destroyed while she was still shut out
from the benefits of the 1917 inch law.
Continuing, he said: We say that the
amendment offered deprives us of our can
ming industries, without giving US the
benefit of the protective law. l cannot be-
lieve that the Senate will be SO unfair and
so uncquitable as to make this dividing
line between these two counties.
Mr.. Hume replied by saying that tho
interests of the county of Hancock were
with the fishermen, and that the senator
from Hancock represented the fishing and
not tho canning interest. He denied that
the Washington county fishermen would
encroach upon the grounds of the Han
cock county fishermen, and pointed out
that it would be impossible to do SO from
the mode in which Holsters were caught.
He desired to wrong no one, but he hoped
the Senate would hesitate a long time be-
fore they struck such blow at the can
ming industries of the STATE as the pas
sage of this law would be.
Mr.. Nickerson said that it was a differ
ent thing, fishing in Washington county
from what it was in Hancock county. In
the former the men from the Provinces
We're all mixed in with the Washington
county fishermen, they fishcd over the
same grounds; while in Hancock county
they had their own grounds and the fisher
men from Washington county could not
fish on their grounds without being de-
tected, and they had no intention of doing
so. He asked the senator from Hancock if
he took this same position two or four
years ago on this question, and asked if he
considered that the question had assumed
different position since that time.
Mr.. Spoford said that he did not know
whether there was any difference or not,
personally, and quoted the old story, that
a man may sometimes change his mind,
but q mule never. He said that he hoped
he did represent the fishing interests, but
thought it undeniably true that the
gentleman from Washington represented
the canning interest. He pointed ont
that from the statement of facts which
had been circulated it appeared that the
total receipts of the canning factories, if
divided equally between the entire num-
Der of people employed would give each
81, IF 81
Mr.. Nickerson quoted from the speech
of Mr.. Spofford two years ago, showing
that he then took different position from
the one he took now, and he said that the
conditions were the same today as they
were then.
After some further remarks from Mr..
Hume and Mr.. Spofford, Mr.. Simpson of
Hancock made q strong plea against the
unfairness of the proposed amendment.
He said that the amendment struck
blow at the canning industries of Hancock
county, and Disseminated in favor of
Washington county, and that 1t was not
right or Just. He said that il the senators
would attack the law be would be with
them but that to take on such an amend
ment as this was not Just or fair, and he
must oppose it in the interests of his con-
stituents
On motion of Mr. Nickerson, the yeas
and nays We're ordered. The question be-
ing on the adoption of Senate amendment
A, the vote was as follows;
Yeas-Messrs. Anses, Cook. Day. Gordon,
Harlow, Higgins, Hume Marston. Mitchell,
morrill,, Nickersou, Reynolds, Shaw, Stone,
WigsiB and Wood.--i6.
Nays-Messrs. Engel. Ferguson, Hill, Max
well, Savage, Simpson, Spofford and Walls.
Paired-Messrs. Prescott and Waterhouse.
yeas; with Messrs. Penney and Hovey, nays.