Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1905-04-04
CITY SOLICITORS REPORT
Accepted by City Council at Special
Meeting, Monday Evening.

Meeting, Monday Evening.
Below is given the annual report OF
City Solicitor Benedict F. Maher 70,
the year 1904, as presented to and ac.
cepted by the city council at the specia
meeting. held on Monday evening:
To His Honor, the Mayor and City
Counoil:
In conformity with the charter and
ordinances, I herewith submit my re-
port of the law department of the City
of Augusta for the past municipal year
There have been a number of claims
against the city during the past year
concerning which I nave been called to
act with the several committees having
the same in charge. These have been all
rejected. save those arising from the
change of grade on Bangor street.
which latter ones were satisfactorily
adjusted.
Against the city the appeal Of DR..
G. H. Brickott from the decision of the
city government. with reference to land
damage. to the supreme judicial court.
was entered at the October term of
sad court, and is now Pending. being
in order for trial at the October term,
next.
By far the most important matter be-
fore this department during the past
year and perhaps for many years. have
been the cases Of the Augusta Water
District and Edwards Manufacturing
Co, with reference TO the taxes ASSESS
ed against the two corporate for the
last municipal year. Involving as the
cases Go. novel and important questions
of law and fact. and from a financial
standpoint meaning much to the city,
additional council was obtained in both
cases.
Reversing the order for the purpose
of reporting their status, the Edwards
Manufacturing Co, at the March term
OF the supreme judicial court. entered
an appeal from the decision of the local
assessors in refusing an abatement of
the valuation as assessed from $l,3..3.
600 to 100000 claiming the same to be
excessive. If the Edwards Manufacture
ing 60. has any technical standing in
court, the mater will probably be as
signed for hearing during the ensuing
summer.
Appearance for the city was entered
by SinondS, Snow. Cook & Hutchin-
son of Portland, and myself as city So
Iicitor. To His Honor the mayor. and
assessors I. at the outset. suggested
that 1t seemed to me a very doubtful
proposition whether the Edwards Man.
ufaoturing Co. had any right to APP
peal. not having properly applied to the
assessors for an abatement. This was
also suggested to the distinguished at
torneys from Portland. and according
ly, at the March term of the supreme
judicial court. the city. to protect it's
rights. through it's attorneys, filed mo-
lions to dismiss the appeal on the
ground of non-conformity to the stat
utes of the State with reference to an
application for abatement.
This of course, involves a very i'm
portant question of law as well as
facts. and will. 1 should apprehend, be
decided before any further steps are
taken. or hearing assigned. For If our
contention be upheld, there can be no
further hearing, the appellent not be-
ing properly in court; in the event of
our contention not being sustained, the
matter would proceed to a hearing.
The case of the Augusta Water Dis
trict is very largely question of law,
and the case was submitted to Hon.
Orville d. Baker in order that his Opin-
ION might be obtained as to the legal
ity Of the assessment. In my humble
judgment. the Augusta Water District
is quasi-municipal corporation, and
all of its property is devoted to purely
public purposes, and therefore not liza
BILE to taxation.
There seems in certain quarters to be
an idea that the public at large desire
a testing of the question, and will be
satisfied with nothing short of the de-
cision of our highest court on the case
This view, while perhaps prevalent
should not be encouraged unless the
city of Augusta. as a moving party
has a fair show of winning it's case.
The condition of our tax rate, and
the universal view that it is now toe
high, will not warrant experimenting
in expensive litigation. unless on the
| merits of our case. and not merely ir
Difference to litigious spirit in the eli
ent counsel for the city. believing there
| is a fair chance for success, should ad-
wise action. From my point of view
after as close an examination as 1 an
| able to give. feel that the city of Au.
gusta could not prevail. and that Il
| would be unjustifiable to impose upor
the citizens at large the burden of al
expensive suit.
The revision of charter and ordi