Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1907-03-06
The Farmers View.

With the recommendation of the Leg
islative Committee of the State Grange
for a stand against extravaganza in
State expenditures the proposal to
move the State capital to Portland, an
undertaking which would increase the
debt Of the State by several million
dollars Indeed the timeliness and
importance of this, the first recon-
mendation of the Legislative Com
mittce, in which it said: 1--WE believe
We should stand solidly against the
extravagance-not to use harSher
terrn-which in many cases seems to
be running riot in State, county and
town affairs" has received no more
striking proof than in the proposal
to move the capital. Under any
definition it would seem to be the OK
treme example of the extravaganza,
mot to use a harsher term" against
which not only the Committee of the
Grange but every principle Of bust
ness sagacity strongly argues.
Extravaganza, of course, is a word
susceptible of various shadings. What
IL extravagant for one man may not
be 50 for another. But in larger
sense the meaning of the word is clear.
One might we'll paraphrase Jefferson
in defining it and say, THE spending
of money, whether in small or large
amounts. for those things which are
not actually needed, to the exclusion
of those which are, is the very
definition of extravaganza"
BY this definition. at any rate, one
can easily determine whether or not
the removal Of the capital to Portland
would be extravagance-"not to use
a harsher term" Nobody, unless per-
haps he reside in Portland, is going to
argue that the State is really suffering
for the removal of the capital. 1t
would hardly increase the efficiency of
the State government. More likely,
Judging by the opinions Of officials in
other states, it would decrease it.
Experience according to them has
shown that the bugaboos of lobbyism
and corporate interests anxious for
grabs from the people flourish more
extensively in a metropolitan atmos-
phere. Probably the result would
be to decrease its efficiency. At al
events, such a step would give 70 the
people a glorious opportunity to fur
Their enjoy the American privilege Of
being taxed, since it would invClTe tie
expenditure of several million dollars
improve and which can hardly be said
to be needed. Already by the Jeffer-
sOnian definition the proposal smacks
of extravaganza.
But viewed from the other side of
the same definition. the extravaganza
becomes doubiy positive. The money
which would be spent on new state
House is needed in many other ways,
as the Legislative Committee of the
Grange has pointed out and as every
farmer knows. No one should be
called an extremist for pointing out
that the lack of funds FOR the Cattle
Commission is working not only a
hardship but Il positive loss to the
cattle owners of the State. OF course
if extravaganza is to be INDUCED in.
the owner can hardly hope for that
day which he nevertheless has legitl-
mate right to expect. when the Com
mission will pay full value, and with
out delay for the cattle which it
destroys. While the farmer may be
willing to accept the ridiculous
maximum sum of $50 for pure bred
animal destroyed so long as the State
is economizing. he will hardly counten-
ancc such an Extravaganza as the NOV
is in a position to afford him an ade-
uuatc return for an animal destroyed
for the good of the State, which may
we'll represent an investment of hum
dreds of dollars of his money. Nor
would it be an extreme demand should
the cattle owner ask that this return
be made in reasonably prompt
manner. As matters stand now. the
work of the Cattle Commission during
1906 not yet paid for. amounts to more
than $2S, 900. of which very large part
represents the inadequate return. long
overdue. to the owners Of cattle
destroyed. Moreover, under the
present system. every time that the
Commissioner destroys an animal for
the good OF the state. it impoverishcs
not only the owner. but the State as
well. Ii is an economic loss. The
farmer is made poorer because n part
of his investment is wiped out and no
provision made for replacing it, and
the State suffers since the losses of
these citizens in the aggregate repre-
sent Il real decrease i'll it's own re-
sources. Certainly no definition OF cX-
travagance can bring within its mean
ing the suggestion that if the State has
money TO SIcllu IL toui'l w pttltl u''tNt
in the work of the Cattle Commissioner
than in moving the capital. The
farmer should receive i fair and quick
return from the State for the property
which the State destroys. Money for
this particular work is needed and
needed badly, more for instance, than
is the relocation of the capital.
The need of assistance from the
State in building good roads is real
one No one can deny their benefit
and if there is money to spend at all
no one could dcnomnate their con-
strGction as an extravaganza But
nevertheless, while certain interests
talk glibly of spending millions of the
peoples money in relocating the capt.
tai and building a new State House.
the State. instead of aiding towns in
the construction of good roads. COM
pels each one to bear the whole burden
Of ,,,aiptaipip the highways within Its