Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1907-02-01
MAINE LEGISLATURE.
Continued from Page Two.)


=. ha constitutional, was one of the wis.,
=, acts that any Legislature ever wrote
-, any statute book, and that tina.
n,rac, was one of the most beneficent
~, the state of Maine ever made; nor
9, important for us to consider the
.onstitu,ionality of the question. We
..,ro, decide that question. My opinion
:. ~ mn importance upon it. The opinion
-. tho senator from Knox is of little i'm
.-,.nce The opinion of the Senate is
~ little Importance. But, If it were i'm
-.r,ant-if We could, Mr.. President, de-
$40 this question, / should suggest to
Nv, that this case OF Hogg against Nc
vov the Oregon case cited with so much
.,c,;on comes very, very far from being
,scisiye of the question. I would sug-
gest that the case involves consideration
~ the constitution Of Oregon, and not
~ Maine; and that the constitution of
oregon differs in very important particu-
lars of the constitution. of Maine. I
.honM also suggest to him that that de-
,sion rests upon fundamental propo-
,reme court of Oregon that: Where Il
constitution provides for a quality in tax
.,;on. a legislature bound by that con-
stitution rot only can not exempt prop
ertv from taxation, but cannot commute
a tax-cannot authorize under any cir
cun,stances the acceptance of a lump
sum of money or of any service in lieu
of taxes and 1 should suggest to him
also that the supreme court of Illinois
has Regulated and denied that doctrine
and established the contrary principles
and that the supreme court of Illinois
decisior-the citation of it's right be-
fore him in the book from which he read
/ should also suggest to him that the
supreme court Of the United States had
denied and repudiated that principle and
established the contrary principles. I
would also suggest to him what is more
important. ard that is: That the su.
weme court of the State of Maine in tho
case Of Portland against the Portland
Water Company. and the Waterville case
have established the contrary principles.
do not mean to say that the supreme
c0ur. Of Maine or of the United States
have decided any case exactly in point.
] do not mean to say that there has been
decision made by either this State or
the United States which absolutely de.
cides the question; but the Fundamental
proposition upon which the Oregon case
rests has been denied and repudiated bv
sha mi
the court of this State.
Mr.. President. I have made this motion
because ] believe this is not a proper
question to submit to the court and be-
cause 1t is not proper occasion upon
which to submit any question to the
court upon this matter: and further, |
believe that the time has not yet como
when the people of the State of Maine
want to repudate their contracts.
say. Mr.. President, that this is not n
proper question to submit to the court
that 1t Is unfair to the court and that if
Is not a square deal to the Bangor Z:
Aroostook Railroad to submit to the
court this question and to ask them in ex-
parte proceeding to determine a question
upon which important rights OF that rail-
read rests. But my opinion IS Of no con
fequence. and / shall not even express
my opinion upon that subject were II
not Tor the fact that the same opinion
mas been expressed by the supreme court
o. the state of Maine-that court which.
Is my brother. the senator from Knox
says. is an honest and honorable court
and one of the best to be found in the
United States.
A few years ago the Governor and
Council exercising their constitutional
lights to require opinions of the supreme
court. submitted to TIE supreme court
justices question rs to whether the
GOVERNOR and Council. upon charges and
rearing, could remove county attorney
IND substitute another in his place; and
me court declined to answer that uues-
uon' and in their reply they say that
Inc county attorney cannot be heard
upon the questions submitted to us and
snd We think 1t inexpedient to prejudice
we question before any occasion has
Hsen calling for its legal determination.
would not they? Might not they? Would
uNy nor, In answer to this question, say:
'he Bangor & AroOstook Railroad cam
NV De heard upon the question submitted
u.s. We think it inexpedient to preju-
we Inc question before any occasion has
aF'sen calling for its legal determine
ton?
"sa'h say 1t is not a proper occasion
tp'h which to submit this question. Ths
"iSututlon Of the State of Maine au-
"''i1es us to submit to the court i'm
r"'aht questions of law upon solemn
"'asions. Now there are differences of
,.H'on among lawyers and among men,
s" the court as to whether the body
asks the question or the body Of
u 'he question is asked has a right
ermine as to the solemnity of the
n.s S'oh' But assuming that we have
n'power. Mr.. President-assuming that
uu'y rests upon us-we should. in
."ihing whether this is a solemn &C.
Ut not, be governed. submit by
.phion of the court constituting that
A.. wv" OF the constitution in the case Of
question submitted a few years ago
sn..., e Rouse. The House submitted a
as to'whether the same person
NJ s'' same time could hold the office
N ana game commissioner and also
,s member of the House of Renresert.
l.