Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1907-02-08
MAINE EDITORIAL COMMENT.
The Farmers View.
(Maine Farmcr.)

(Maine Farmcr)
II is somewhat difficult to reconcile
with the recommendation Of the Leg
isiative Committee of the State Grange
for 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
mittcc, in which it said: I'VE believe
We should stand solidly against the
eXtravagance-not to use n harShcr
terin--Which IN many cases seems 10
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 ex-
IRENE example of the extravaganza
mot to use a harsher term" against
which not only the Committee of the
Grange but every principle CT bust
ness sagacity strongly argues.
Extravaganza, of course, is a word
susceptible of various shadings. What
is eXtravagant for one man may not
be SO for another. But in larger
sense the meaning of the word is clear.
One might well paraphrase Jefferson
in defining it and say, 1.-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 all
events, such a step would give to the
people a glorious opportunity to fur
Their enjoy the American privilege of
being taxed, since it would involve the
expenditure of several million dollars
for an Improvement" which does not
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 doubly positive. The money
which would be spent on a new State
House is needed in many other ways.
as the Legislative Committee of the
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
hardship but q 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 legiti
nate 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-
ance such an extravaganza as the NOV
ing of the State capital until the State
is in a position to afford him an ade-
quate 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 a reasonably prompt
manner. AS matters stand now, the
work of the Cattle Commission during
1906 not yet paid for, amounts to more
than $2S,000, 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 impoverishes
not only the owner. but the State as
we'll. 1t is an economic loss. The
farmer is made poorer because a part
IF his investment is wiped out and no
provision made for replacing it, and