Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1895-03-21

Black, Clark Of Hollis, Coffin, Dole, DoteD,
Dudley, Geyer, Hutchinson, Kane, Lawrence
Of Labec LAWRENCE 81 North Y annss =;
Gon1dsboro, Moulton, Pinkham, Rideont,
Rodick, Rollins, Sanborn, Sawyer OF Mill
bridge, Shea, Singer, Smith OF Marion, Spear
Of West Gardiner, Stanley, Twitcheil' WINS
1ow.-T.
The report was accordingly adopted.
On motion of Mr. league of Caribou,
the bill was read twice and assigned for
for tomorrow for It's third reading.
Reports Of Committees.
Mr.. Packard, from the committee on
state lands and State roads, reported that
the committee had attended to all matters
before them, and beg leave to make their
final report.
The report was accepted and the COM
mttec discharged.
Mr.. Jones, from the committee on ways
and bridges, reported in a new draft ana
ought to pass, on an act relating 10 the
repairs of highways and bridges in towns.
Printed under rule.
An act for the assessment OF State tax
for the year 1895, amounting to the sum
of ss13, 072.30. j.
Read three times under suspension OF
the rules and passed to be engrossed, on
motion Of Mr.. Merrill of Portland.
On motion OF Mr.. Hamlin OF Ellsworth,
an act to establish the salary OF the coun-
ty attorney OF the county of Androscog-
gin, was taken from the table, read a third
time and passed to be engrossed.
On motion of Mr.. Adams of Bowdoin,
an act to fix the salary of the county at
torney of Waldo county, was taken from
the table and passed to be engrossed.
Bill In regard to fishing in B pond, Up
ton, Oxford county.
Mr.. Gilbert moved that the bill be in
definitely postponed.
Mr. Smith of Hanover spoke against iu-
definite postponement.
The question being on the motion to
indefinitely postpone, division being
had, the motion was lost by vote of "a
for to A against
On motion of Mr. Smith of Hanover
the bill was then passed to DO engrossed.
Mr.. Lane Of Augusta, moved to take
from the table House document $50, bill
in regard to Intoxicating liquors
Mr.. Lane said that he wished that this
traffic might be suppressed entirely and
that the use of liquor might be restricted
to its proper uses Of medicinal and me-
chanical purposes, but realize, Mr.
Speaker, that the prohibition of the sale
at least in this State is not fact OPP
pose the constitutional amendment as 1t
now stands because IL makes the constitu-
ton on its face lie. voted against 1t
when it was submitted to the people for
the same reason. If the constitutional
amendment read as a part of it does read
that the Legislature shall enact laws with
suitable penalties for the suppression of
the manufacture sale and keeping for
sale intoxicating liquors, it would have
my hearty support every time; but when
it says the manufacture, sale, etc, of in
toxicating liquors are and shall be for
ever prohibited, it states what Is not true
and what every gentleman on this floor
knows Is not true. In regard to this bill,
when moved that 1t lilo on the table, l
had the idea that 1t might be amended.
Upon reading it carefully and comparing
it with the Statutes came to one of two
conclusions and today don't know which
conclusion is the right one. concluded
that 1t was either the work of one
of the shrewdest minds that exists
in the State perhaps, or of the biggest
fool. I did conclude for one reason that
it is the work of a shrewd mind and why
do come to that conclusion? Because
don't believe that the committees who
reported this bill, and l presume they
know its author, would have reported that
bill if 1t had come from fool. If the
gentlemen Of this House have examined
this bill they will find the most unusual
legislation provided for therein. They
will find In this bill that for the first of
Tense for single sale of glass of cider
there is penalty Of some 5000 fine and
imprisonment. They will find under this
law that man who may be tried and
no matter when or in what court in the
State, though it might be in his youthful
days, it is previous conviction and the
court has no jurisdiction in looking upon
1t. Was there ever more sweeping pen
atty for any act under the heavens! l
tried to amend it but gave it up as bad
job. wish to call particular attention
to one provision In this bill. This bill
provides that II father or mother or a
son or wife who is on the premises
where the intoxicating liquors were sold
they shall be deemed equally guilty with
the principal who was selling the liquor.
Are you ready to pass such bills Idon't
believe you are ready to do it. l don't
believe that the committee ever dreamed
they were reporting such bill when they
did it. With these remarks, move that
the bill be indefinitely postponed.
Mr.. Daggett of Smyrna said he believed
the bill should be well considered. This
question has engaged the attention OF the