Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1905-03-16

| thai the argument put forth by III" gen
,lemau from Portland is irrespective Of
| the constitution and of the rights of this
uouse for the purpose Of having this bin
considered now ut this time upon its mrr-
its. And lest there are some in this
House who do not fully understand the
question before the House will take oc-
casion to say that this has nothing to do
| with the merits of this measure one way
| or the other. 1t is simply "A question of
the privileges and rights of this fJouse
| When the bill comes up in the proper
course for action on its merits ! shall
have some views to express on that bill,
but ] trust that my views in relation To
the bill have no bearing and no weight
with me in approaching tn" question now
before the House; and the question now
before the House is whether this bill in
the way in which ii has been introduced
is in cOntraventiOn of the ninth section
of article four of the constitution which
provides that all bills for raising rev
enue shall originate in the House of Rep
lreScntativeS.
TO begin with I wish to call attention
to fallaciOIs argument of the gentleman
|
introduces, n basis on which he POUNDS
his whole argument. and that is that We
determine our own rules and methods
and should be governed by them. | wish
now and here to inform the gentleman
and every member Of this House that 1t is
not a rule OF this House We are talking
about: it is the organic law which governs
our action as well the action of all the
other people in the State of Maine. II is
aside from the rules of the House IF it
was an infringement of the rules of the
House the proper time to have raised the
question would have been when the bill
came up and then to have raised n point
of order to be ruled upon by the Speak
er. Eut this is further and deeper. 1t is
n violation not of a rule of this House.
not Of thing of which we have con-
troll. but of the very law by which we are
controlled and by which We must be
controlled I have no desire to interfere
with anything the Senate may wish to
do. but | know that the gentleman from
Portland is too good a lawyer to expect
any lawyer is this House. and ! think he
has too much good sense to expect any
member of this House, to hold that an
action of this House or the Senate when
Il point was not in question, was not
raised. wher it went by unanimous con-
sent or without objection. is n precedent
for any action on the part of this House
when the point is raised. Does the gen
tlcnIan ever cite to the supreme court
any justice thereof as precedent some
thing that was done when the point in
| controversy was not raised! God for
Sneaker I harp1
he held to indorse proceedings of this
House as being consistent with the laws
of the State of Maine when no question
has been raised about it and I had no
opportunity to express an opinion upon
it one way Or the other. That is what
the gentleman wishes us to do. He says
that the presidents of bills originating iii
the Senate and coming to this House have
settled it and fixed it for the purposes of
this legislature 7 ask YOU in the first
place. what can the action of this House
or the Senate fix and determine in contra
vention of the constitution of the State
of Maine? Suppose for instance only yes
terday noon a gentleman who voted on
the losing side of q meas sire made a mo-
ton to reconsider it. The question was
voted on without the point being raised
mentary rules and the rules of this House
for him to make such a motion. Does the
fact that that was done yesterday estab-
lish in the mind of the gentleman from
Portland that that is proper parlia-
mentary proceeding. that the action of
the House yesterday was a precedent
which established the right and propriety
of that proceeding? So much for the prec
IA. Il hot in,
not one single case was any
mans attention who passed upon
those bills called to the question
here in controversy. Does any mem
Der of the House wish to be held as
endorsing the regularity of proceed
ing when noboiy's attention is called
to it and when he has no: acted on it?
Does he wish hereafter some member
Of this House II rise up and say that
every member i'll the House said that
hat was right? Mr.. Speaker, the gen
tleman as a lawyer never would think
of producing such things as precedents
for the action of anybody. But he
proves altogether too much. In 1893 nc
says. bill was ..assej for taxing trust
and banking companies. What undtr
Heaven is bill iOr raising revenue II
| a blll taxing truSt l1n ndnklnS colil-
panies is not n bill for raising revenue?
The gentleman says it is not a bill
for raising revenue W nero are you 60
ing to find biz for raising revenue
presume the gentleman wOulr agree
that appropriation bills are bills for
raising revenue. that resolve carrying
appropriations are bills raising reNe-
nue. If that be so. what does that
prove? Repeatedly resolves carrying
money and raising revenue have origi-
mated in the .'anate Of the Legislature
| Of the state of Maine If they are bills
for raising revenue have they properly
| originated in the Senate because no
question has ever been raised about
them? He cites rs precedent the law
| IF 1898 which laid an increase tax up
on railroads. Eas any gentleman any
Goubt as to whether that is a bill for
raising revenue? The gentleman won't
even admit that that is q bill for rails
ing revenue. I are not what bills he
| takes. ! would :.Sk him if those bills
are not bills for raising revenue, wha-
on earth are? Assuming that some ore
| of se. 1,:11 e., ,cfn