Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1907-03-07
MAINE LEGISLATURE,
Continued from Page Two.)

general legislation. Should we not take
that step rather than continue this
species Of class legislation which forces
those municipalities which have
bridges to continue in their care and
maintenance, and aid those which ara
hereafter constructed. thus carrying
the whole public burden for their To-
cality and sharing for other commun-
tiles? The regulation proposed by the
law seems reasonable in fixing a time
when the State is to take over these
public structures which are then built
and assume their erection, under Ger
tain regulations, Of those hereafter con-
strcted. 1t does not give the privilege
to any community, if such one ex-
listed in the State. to now rush ahead
and start the construction of a bridge
before July !, next, and then turn it
over to the State for completion. 1t
works an apparent hardship upon those
communities which have in good faith
commenced such work, but 20 those
it simply says, every completed bridge
in your community we will take over
and those which are in the process Of
construction, when completed. We are
obliged in order to get the funds. to
accomplish this great work to make
some limitations and cause some 3p
parent hardships. But no law was ever
enacted which rested upon all persons
or communities alike. There will al
ways be some apparent inequalities of
benefits, but in this, as In others, the
purpose has been to secure the great
est good Tor the greatest number. If
this law assumed the future building
Of all bridges. now under construction.
- a. lea tNn
care, repair and maintenance of those
bridges we take over. In this respect
the regulations Of the law seen to me
to be reasonable. 1t certainly does not
seem repugnant to the constitution of
the state or Of the United States in
making this condition prcC edent to the
care and maintenance OF the bridges
This till mas been attacked because
it is not specific enough IN its rcgulL
tons and details. There can be no
question but this measure, If enacted
as a law, VIII accomplish one thing
and that is the assumlt on by the State
of the control and maintenance Of all
bridges in this State over 40 feet in
length. If there is any doubt over this
point then the opponents to the meas
ure would not be so strenuous in their
objection TO the Jaw. And this IS the
very gi3t of the measure itself, and if
it is specific enough to accomplish that
object. il certainly will accomplish tn .
main object of the law.
II il again attacked because it carries
with it 4 irict ion of :: mill tax t. meet
the expenses. AS understand the his
tory of this measure. as il was first
discussed, the expenses We're to come
from the state treasury. Irrespective &c
how tho funds were obtained. but sub
sequcntly when il was aSccrtaincd with
q fair degree Of certainty how mu, Il
this expens" would J." then il was
agreed to provide for this sum by Il
fraction Of n mill tax. And why not?
Let me read from the opinion of our
court given in answer to the inquiry
whether the State had authority to as
sess mill tax for the schools, the tax
in question is like that for the supper,
OF the government. il is for the benefit
Of the whole people. All the prnportj
in the State is assessed th":cfnr a'-
cortlng to its valuation. Nj contribute
thereto in proportion 20 their means.
1t is a tax for a public Durnose. not
one by which on" Individual IS taxed
for the special ana peculiar benefit of
another. All enjoy the beneficial re-
suits of education, and the better or
dcrder and government arising there
from. irrcspectiv" Of the amounts re-
spectively contributed by each to these
most important objects.
All acts of the Legislature are pre-
sumed to he constitutional till the con-
trary is clearly shown. NO court VIII de-
clare an act unconstitutional when IL"
constitutionality is matter OF doubt.
In relation to the questions pio-
posed. we answer that the leSlSidti'c
has authority under the constitution
To assess a general tax upon the prop
ertv Of the State for the purpose Oh
a;atr,hution under AN act to estab-
fish the mill fund for the support OF
common schools approved feprp>
airy 81, 1872"
Now substitute the words prldSfS
IN town and county ways ana street
and YOU can guess fairly well whether
this tax is just, reasonable and con-
stitutional.
Among the other objections to the
bill are the great unknown quantity
of expense, the great unappreclateu
danger of extravaganza Of our severai
county commissioners, and State ana
road commissioners in repairing o.
constructing bridges. and the great
question Of favoritism in settlng
claims for damages to person or prop
erty. These arguments are advanced
more to defeat the general object OF
the bill than because they are believed
in by the parties presenting them
The expense can be and has been
closely Appropriated at $4,000 and
1-2 mil tax would be $l6S,321, an am
pie amount to appropriate for all ex-
pected emergencies under this bill; the
county commissioners have heretofore
been found in kennebec county con-
serva tive business men. of integrity
and ability, and | doubt not they have
been the same in the other fifteen
counties. ] do not believe it is a fair
argument to advance that now they
all would throw honesty and business
integrity to the winds to obtain need
less favors, or grant them, under this
law, if they did then our State COM
missioner has veto power, and as
1npC We lyaan him find n worthy