Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-03-12

| ize that the report is unanimous, ant
should be given great weight; put zee
the weight of the committee report Il
| on the broad question OF Whether OF
| not it is a proper thing for this state
| to charge any tax in the shape OF IL
cense to non-residents visiting TINS
State to hunt. On that issue l wan
to put myself on record now as being
against the proposition of license; Du'
after having seen how the committee
felt about this, in a way l yield my
personal opinions; and would be obllg-
ed to on that question. The commit
tee are possibly right, but / feel it Is 9
question of expediency and not ques-
ton of principle which they have IN
voked here. In substance the purpose
of my amendment is that IL the ilIle
has come when the State of Maine
feels it can no longer offer non-resi-
dents free access to our forests, LAKES
and ponds for the purpose OF nuhtlhs
and tishlng--if that time has come
feel that the tax imposed upon non
residents should be distributed some
what in proportion to the Dement'S they
receive. l do not agree with the idea
and 7 do not think at heart this move
ment for a tax is for protection, but
rather for revenue. Now, if the mean
ing of this taxing of non-residents is
for a revenue for the purpose OF pro-
tecting our fish and game business, /
feel that all those who participate IN
the benefits should pay their part.
feel that if the hunters should be tax
ed, the fishermen should be taxed; and,
[ think, on the question of revenue, no
one will dispute the proposition that
tax of $3.50 on each nonresident fish
erman will yield more revenue than q
tax of $25 on the hunters. If the time
has come when the State feels it ought
to charge something, | feel that the
tax should be distributed fairly and
not discriminate against one class, ana
put no charge on the other. There are
four sections in our State where big
game is offered to non-residents. 1t is
unfair to discriminate against the bust
ness of those sections, allowing the sec
tions having the fishing to escape with
out taxing; and l think $40 tax on the
hunter is enough; and / shall move to
amend by substituting $40 for $15 and
that a tax of $3.50 should be imposed on
fishermen.
Mr. GUERNSEY of Piscataquis: Mr..
President, 1 hope the motion of the
senator from Penobscot will not pre-
vail No public measure of proposed
legislation was more fully discussed in
the press of the State than the propo-
sition to place a tax on nonresident
hunters / think that a tax should be
| -
the amount; and when the matter was
before the committee on inland fish
cries and game as l remember, they
agreed, in the first instance on high
or rate of tax than is now proposed in
the bill. but later it was reduced to
flat rate of SIS as a concession to those
who were not in favor of higher tax
and that. 1 believe, is low enough. l
must agree with the senator from Pc
nobscot that the right to fish should be
taxed as we'll as the right to hunt.
Mr.. STETSON of Penobscot: Mr..
President, this question has been under
discussion before. The papers have
been full OF the question whether we
should charge a license. | do not I'M
derstand that the senator raises the
question of amending the bill because
we are going to charge a license, but
ra ther on the amount. If you attempt
to charge a license on all fish and
game you are opening a wide question.
There is much dissatisfaction in regard
to the principle now, and if you are
going to tack on an amendment to
charge SO much pro rata for fishing,
YOU are antagonizing the larger part of
the people who come here. Is $l5
enough? Is it too much?
The hearing was well attended and
was nearly unanimous in favor of a IL
cense. and the amount stated was one
thought to be most satisfactory. The
committee realized that the game is
decreasing. The number of wardens is
small. and it is utterly impossible to
police the State. Give the bill a two
years trial and if it is not found sat
isfactory let it be amended at the next
session of the Legislature.
The question being put on the mo-
ton of Mr.. Gardner of Penobscot, to
amend, the motion was lost. On mo-
ton by Mr.. Wing of Androscoggin, the
bill took it's several readings under sus-
pension of the rules and was passed to
be engrossed.
On motion by Mr.. Staples of Knox,
he Senate adjourned to meet on
Thursday, March II, 1903, at 10 O'Clock
A. M.