Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1907-03-19
CAPITAL REMOVAL.
Continued from Page Two.)

quantity even" Ii this enabling act is |
constitutional. then it is competent for
the Legislature to put the burden of a
State House in whole or in part, upon
one ward in Portland or upon a single
parcel of property, with or without its
consent
!. In the Dyar case, it was argued
| that if The people of the village con-
| scented by vote there was no reason
why the constitutional rule Of Unequal
| ity shall be applied. Here, it is argued
| that the city of Portland should have
| the privilege Of assessing such taxes
| as its people by vote may deem to be
| for its good. To this the court said: eff
| the Legislature may authorize the i'm
| position of such a tax. provided ma
| jority or two-thirds of the legal voters
| residing upon the territory consent. it
| may do so without such consent. Such
| consent, if it ought in justice to bind
| those who vote yes, should not affect
| those who vote no, and especially the
| women and children and nOn-residents.
" no have no right to vote at all. The
Constitution does not place their prop
erty at the disposal of their neighbors.
The question is one Of power, not how
the power shall be exercised 2.
Does our bill of rights. and especially
that clause which declares that all
taxes upon real estate. assessed by au-
thority of this State. shall be appor-
toned and assessed equally according
to the Just value thereof. allow Of such
a result? We think not. The conclusion
shows that the premises must be
wrong"
s. Fully argued upon every point now
l Nv y11I
against every legal contention now as
serted by Portland, made law by the
giants of that day. Judges Walton, APP
plcton, Peters and Virgin. and reaf-
nrmcd by our present court, court as
great in ability as its predecessors, in
a decided case where they say the cor
roctness of the decision cannot be ques-
toned, the question is now res judicata
land every element Of the doctrine Of
stare deciSiS fully met Our present
court would in law be compelled to fol-
low it.
8. Reduced to its final analysis, the
court decided that where a larger com
munity had the power to assess a tax
| for. Il public purpose no portion of that
| community could assess Il tax for the
same purpose Applying the rule to the
| facts where the state has the power to
| assess a tax for q state purpose, no
county, city, town part of Il town has
| the pUWer To assess taxes for the same
purpcsc with or without the consent Of
the voters therein.
10 This construction of the constitution
| established by two decisions of the court
| in causes between parties is now as much
a part Of the constitution as if written
therein. That the conscience of the Leg
| islatIlr. is bound by that construction
| needs 10 argument.
TIC strength Of all cases IS best shown
hy subjocting them to logic, independent
= ~ Of judicial decision. If the state is t.
a-S,-.s 1:ppn the taxable property of tn,
state $1,000 Of n state burden Of $1,2O,-
~ ana III" remaining $4,000 is ultimate
IL to be assessed upon Portland alone
- the inference is irresistible taht the ta>
burden Of $l.2l0Oop has been unequallS
t | aprortiontd at thu. start. If we are living
:, lander a system where The caprice Of
Il Legislature can distribute the burdens o
IS | the State so that one-SeVcnth Of its val
> | uatiDn shall bear twO-thrds of Il givel
IL burden il would seem clear that sucl
an apportionmcnt Of the taxes for tina
burden Is unequal. If We are living undo
vote of town can assume all or par
I, Of any State burden, well may the non
residents, women and children and tn
minority say that natural justice de
mands that the state should apportiol
oil taxation for state purposes equal,
upon all the property Of the state. Wei
might our court say, rs it did, that OIL
CONSTITUTE nal rule was designed f
guard against the possibility of sucl
!. oppressive legislation and denounce it
q as they did as cOnfiscGtion.
This question is not simply Theoretical
q or academic. 1t was stated by the senI
q tor from Lincoln, in the debate in IL.
Senate, that for Portland to contribut
i $4,000 in cash to the State treasury an
Il to buy the necessary site will call 70
a 81. O00.O0. The senator from Cumberland
Mr. Merrill said in the same debate tina
if Portland had no constitutional powc
to levy taxes or to issue bonds for thi
3 purpose. then her citizens would rails
the amount by subscription. If the goo'
e people OF Portland really believe the!
q can convince the people of Marie tina
: they can raise by voluntary subscription
: 81. O00 OG). no reason exists why the Leg
isIature should pass this enabling act L
and void upon their very face. In 1SS
e. the extent Of their subscription ability
was $1,000 towards a State House
cost $1.1OO0O0. 1t would seem clear tina
the passage of this bonding bill is emf
| nentlv practical, otherwise tie proposed
vote of the people becomes an idle fare"
Academic or practical, | submit that n.
act should be passed by this Legislature
| in violation of an Interpretation Of TIL
constitution long settled by the court.
1T has been privately suggested, but s.
| far rs I know never publicly. that tn,
enabling act is immaterial because Port
| land has $4,000 of gas stocks and rail
| road stocks worth about sl.OoW0. which
she could sell and with the cash mee'
her contribution Of s1.01oo0. If 50, thi>
bonding bill is not needed 1t needs H.
| argument before n communities of j
trained lawyers to show that the same
| rule of law that now forh;dS a tax or al