The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1907-03-14
Stockton's Seal Bounty.
The House Votes to Reimburse the Town

vi 40SOlvo III ldNOl VI CtOChlOu springs,
and the question was on substituting
the resolve for the report Of the COM
mittee.
Mr.. Colcord of Searsport-Mr. Speak
er, the statement of facts and accom-
panying vouchers attached to the re-
solve contain about all the information
relating to this subject.
They are as follows:
The town treasurer of Stockton paid
SIS for bounty on seals after the law
was repealed. He claims that he did
know or understand that the abolish
ment of said law affected his section,
The secretary of State says that it is
often three months after adjournment
before all the towns get their copy of
the legislative work, which would be
about the time the last bounty was
paid-July 1, 1905. The committee
claims that ignorance or carelessness is
no excuse. We admit that in law this
treasurer might not be able to recover,
but this is not case for the legal
fraternity. Were these services render
ed? The vouchers show that they
were. Was the destruction of these
seals as much benefit to the State after
the law was repealed as before? Can
anyone doubt it? l have been told by
men in the fishing business that enc
seal would destroy $40 worth of fish in
one season.
By easy computation it can be readily
seen that the destruction of these sea
animals, with all their future progeny,
has benefited the State nearly $1,000.
The question for us to decide is: Shall
this treasurer, who paid $75 for SER
vices actually rendered to the State, re-
ceive this amount, which is one and one
half years salary as town treasurer, or
shall the State OF Maine refuse to reim-
burse the same on the ground that he
is not entitled to it by law?
Mr.. DuntOn of Belfast-Mr. Speaker
and gentlemen, l know personally the
treasurer of the town of Stockton
Springs. | know him to be a very &C
curate and careful and conscientious
business man. He has served that town
as treasurer for quite long time. 1t
Act of 1905 repeating the bounty on
seals he paid out $75 to persons who
had killed seals before he learned that
this law had been enacted. Now, l
don't wonder that he did not discover
that the bounty on seals had been re-
pealed, for in looking it up this morn
ing looked at the index and was con-
fused myself when l found the act, as
to whether it was the one or not. Now
that Act reads as follows, and l wish to
read it and ask you if you were a treas
urer of town paying a bounty on seals
and no one had especially called your
attention to the fact that the bounty
had been repealed, whether you would
suspect it from this Act:
Section l. Section SO of Chapter Al
of the Revised Statutes is hereby amend
ed by striking out all of said section as
far as the word mo" in the ninth line,
SO that said section as amended shall
read as follows:
Section 3d. No person shall during
the months of June, July and August
destroy seals in the waters of Casco
bay by shooting with rifle or other long
range weapon, which might endanger
human life, under a penalty for any
violation of this section, of fifty dol
lars, to be recovered upon complaint or
on indictment, before any court of COM
petent jurisdiction"
| understand that the committee re-
ported adversely upon this claim for
the reason that the ignorance of the
law did not excuse the treasurer. That
is true as a matter of law. 1t is a rule
acted upon by all our courts but is not
acted upon by the Legislature. We
have at this session passed an Act by
which we paid to the town of Liberty
certain amount under the State roads
law because they had failed to comply
with the law that they knew all about.
They had failed to comply with it and
were not in law entitled to any pay
from the State. But the Legislature
has power to remedy that, and it SEEM
ed right undoubtedly to the committee
and the Legislature that it should be
refunded and they did SO. We have
passed law paying to town its school
tax because it has been forfeited by
not complying with the law which the
officers undoubtedly knew about. 1t
was not willful violation of the law
but through some inadvertence or ne
glect it was not complied with: Now
If town or person has legal claim
against the State they do not have to
present it to the Legislature. 1t is
only when through some technicality
of the law there is no longer a legal
claim that they 60 to the Legislature.
If it is legal claim, all they have to do
is to present it to the Governor and
Council or to the proper officers, and it
is audited and paid. So here, there is
no question about the fact. The treas
urer of the town of Stockton Springs
did not know that that law had been
repealed. Perhaps he ought to have
examined the law more thoroughly.
But he did not know it, and before he
learned it he had paid out SIS as a
bounty upon seals which the gentleman
from Searsport says is his salary for
year and half as treasurer. Now, he
paid that out of the towns funds The
town can make him repay it, but under
the circumstances is it not right that
this money which was paid in good
faith under a law which the State had
enacted and before he had any knowl-
edge that it had been repealed--is there
any reason why we should not consider
this CLAIM favorably and allow him the
$75 to be paid under these circum-
stances?
1t may be said that he could recover
it back from the persons to whom he
paid it. He might have legal claim for
it, but the men who kill seals for a
bounty of one dollar a head are not
usually very responsible men, and it
would be very difficult if not impossible
to recover it back. So it comes to this:
Shall the Legislature having undoubted
authority to reimburse this town for
this SIS which was paid out of their
funds, pay back that amount? 1t may,
u