Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1905-02-09
MAINE LEGISLATURE.
III
CONTINUED from page p


should be paid for work under existing
conditions; and to report by bill or
otherwise
the authority conferred upon this
con, mittee is to consider this matter Of
tie State printing. not the matter OF
The STATE printer. The two things are
5. pa:lie and distinct. The committee
On state printing is to determine il the
bulk is excessive, to determine If the
Irice is excessive, to determine in what
way savings may be made to the State
and what changes are necessary in this
batter Of printing. When we come to
the question Of abolishipg one Of the
regularly appointed State officers II
does not seem to me that 1t should be
,"fC rred to committee having special
,.o,. ers. when it is by any means doubt
ful as to whether the authority Of that
"omnitte is sufficient to act. I think
]: il well-known principle Of parlia-
:1cI tary law that while stand COM
nittee may consider any mater which
nay be referred to it, a special commit
tee is strictly bound in the considera-
lion Of any matter before it by the linn
is Of the authority prescribed by the
l5ldluIc oI hOuy tSPloiHtiH ~ "i'N
il should not consider matters outside
81 it's established jurisdiction by the
ord. r appointing it until the authority
:" to do has been previously granted.
il 81 ems to me. If this is to go to the
c,mmittee on printing. there should be
,:rst an order passed properly extend
ing the powers Of thai committee to
consider the Que stion OF whether the
office. Of the State printer should De
abolished. II they hav. that power ana
IL il is conferred upon them. have no
desire to limit their powers in any way
g.. to keep this matter from them; but
as ne matter now stands. and as the
authority to them by this House and
Senate now reads. it seems to me that
his matter should he referred to one
II the legal committees.
have no personal feeling in the mat
,.r and 1 do not believe any member
III the committee has. except to have
the matter considered by a proper COM
hittee. We can confer with that COM
r.ittAe, If it seems rece ssary. SO We
iaiel be able to act in,elligently.
Mr.. LITTLEFIELD of Rockland: Mr..
S?"; ker. may I ask what action was
taken on the bill in the Senate?
The SPEAKER: The bill was intro
duccd by the Senator from Knox (Mr
;;rarles) and comes down from the
Srn;te referred to the committee in
l-"a! affairs.
NJ. LITTLEFIELD: 1t seems to me
Mr. Speaker and gentlemen Of the
l:ncSe. that it is questionable whether
the title of this bill complies within the
i'iu; rules Of this Legislature. 1t is not
H. distance and effect a bill to abolish
HE office of State printer 1t accom-
l'!>leS that purpose. Its title would
-; indicate that it was the same mat
ic.' that has been referred already to
the committee OH printing; but I think
= reading Of the bill will show that the
rrI! question for consideration under
ut bill is whether we shall do the
printing in the way we have been doing
il %" whether it shall be done by con-
tract. If done by contract it might or
micnt not abolish the office Of State
iAnier. In substance and effect it
v",.id do it. but the question is not
simply whether we abolish the office of
STATE printer. but under this bill it is
i u:estiOn as to what change in the
law should be made as to the way in
Fa-h the State printing is done.
IL her it shall be done under
the law passed by the Legislature
fixing the price and must be done
IL accordance with the prices fixed
by the Legislature. or whether the Gov
rr'."r and Council shall contract with
the lowest bidder to do the State print
ing. Isn't that the substance of that
bill. Isn't that all there is to it? And
in moment l shall have occasion to
call your attention to the fact that this
is Precisely the thing for which we
lav" created this joint special COM
mtt"e on printing.
Now l have no desire to entrench up
~ my of the business of the committee
on Legal affairs, or to prevent anything
from going to the committee on legal
:tiiIirS; but 1 think there are reasons
AID weighty reasons. why the same
matter should not be under investiga-
,inn by two committees of this Legisla-
turc who may report opposite conclu-
sioi;s. I think that the committee on
legal affairs, when they have this bill
before them to investigate what we
have created a SPECIAL committee to in
Nt'StISdtt, NOuiu themselves refer tie
b,ll hack to the House stating that the
*.,ne subject matter they were expect
cd to investigate under it was already
being investigated by a committee. not
an ordinary committee. but commit
tee we have authorized to spend money
Tor that purpose.
Mir. SEWALL Of Bath: Mr.. Speaker
may 7 interrupt the gentleman?
Tie SPEAKER: Does the gentleman
from Rockland desire to be interrupt
er?
AR. LITTLEFIELD: Certainly
Mr.. SEWALL: I would ask the gen.
tleiran from Rockland if I understand
him correctly to say that if this bill
were referred to the committee on lega
affars. it would have the authority te
report back to the House that it has
not jurisdiction of the matter?
Mr.. LITTLEFIELD: I would an
swer the gentleman from Bath by say
ing that any committee may do so. ant
1t has frequently been done by the jul
dietary committee. When it has before
1t matters which it finds are already
under investigation by some Other
proper committee. it can report back t.
ho uo,,So opd recommend that fhOS.