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

say to the lawyers Of the committee
that per cent. Is reckoned upon the city
valuation and 1t is the gross debt of tho
city. not the net Mayor Clifford this
morning was good enough when I went
to him, and asked the question, to say
that the present borrowing power Of
Portland Was but $4,000; so that to use
the saoo.0 900 act, II ever passed. It would
be necessary for Portland to take some
Of the assets in her treasury and reduce
her debt down in order to get those
bonds out. But assuming that the city
of Portland did so unwise a thing as
that-and up to the present hour she has
jealousy hung to the control Of her gas
works and the railroad outlet to the west
as being things Of far more Importance
than the qualification Of her pride in the
building OF a State House, and I don't
believe the hour will ever come when
Portland would be guilty OF such folly
but assuming that she is. what then? The
supreme court OF this State in Perkins
VS.. Milford. s9th Maine, page 49, said by
way Of dictum, that the constitution
gives no authority to raise money to give
away. Not a question OF construction OF
etdtuteS, u question OF CONSTITUTIONAL
power that under the constitution. as
they said. there is no authority
to raise money to give away. And,
gentlemen. the precise question, the
exact question In legal principle, was
settled by the supreme court Of this State
in the great case Of Dyer VS. The Farm
ingtcn Village Corporation. The Differ
ence In facts is immaterial, it Is always
no Sbo
and II my friend Is familiar with that
case he knows state it. with perfect ac-
curacy when I say that the court there
decided that the same piece Of property
cannot be taxed twice by two taxing
powers for the same public purpose In
other words. my friends house in Port
land. II you raise 100000 by taxation.
would be subject to the State tax: II you
empower Portland to raise half a mil
lion by bond 1t will be subject to fur
ther tax by the city. and both be for tho
same purpose. The facts are parallel;
the principles arc parallel: the decision
is exactly in point: and as long as the
constitution of Maine embraces Portland
and Augusta, and as long as the supreme
court has the power to annul uuconstitu-
tional legislation, just 50 long are you
without power to pass any enabling act
to permit the city of Portland to issue
bond to aid in the building of q State
House. And the power to bond, the
power to tax or the power to give away
property that is In your municipal treas.
ury. all rest on the same principle. You
can never bond where you cannot tax.
You cannot give away where you can
not tax. You hold $4,000 OF gas stock,
you hold approximately 100000 OF rail-
road stock, and II in your mad desire to
carry your will you should ever be gull
ty of the supreme folly OF devising the
plan even of putting your hands on
those assets and turning them into mon
ey to give them away. you are up against
this same power. for all courts have UNI
formly held that the power to bond, the
power to tax, the power to use municipal
assets which themselves were or to be
replaced would have to be the subjcc.
Of taxation. all so back to the constitu-
tional power to tax. and just so long az
the constitution Of Maine reads as 1t
does. Just SO long as that charter of tho
peoples rights devised to check Wild leg
islation. devised. Mr.. Chairman, to stop
the caprice of legislative bodies, designed
to protect the helpless minority against
the oppression Of majority, Just so long
as that constitution stands and just so
long as 1t contains the immortal Ian
guage that all taxes assessed by the
State shall be assessed equally, and 50
long as the great case OF Dyer VS.. The
Pennington Village Corporation stands
in this State, Just so long will the people
of Portland find that II they want to
bride the State Of Maine they must como
here as they did in 1889 and out Of the
pockets Of her citizens. not out Of the
pockets Of her taxpayers, hold UP her
wealth to tempt the State Of Maine into
doing wrong.
Now. Mr.. Chairman. my distinguished
friend may have studied this question.
He may be able to read to you extracts
that under the peculiar constitutional
provisions of those states this thing
could he done. There are states where
there is no constitutional inhibition.
There are states where taxes can be
levied for any purpose the Legislature
orders. There are states where this
doctrine is differently worded Some
states have sustained it, some have de-
MED it. It is immaterial what the ruiz,
of law j. in Maryland, Massachusetts,.
Virginia. Florida. Tea Ohio or ILL.,
noi'. We arc living under the consti-
tuition OF Muinc, we are living under
the power Of the supreme court Of
Maine. and the law, Mr.. Chairman, has
been settled in Maine in such distinct
and plain words that the wayfarins
man. though fool. need not CIR when
he reads il.
Mr.. Chairman, ] have taken so much
time that it would be ill-becomins for
me to refer to some topics that are
legitimate. Leaving it as State
question l submit to you that even the
city Of Augusta has some equities
here. We have built up this city be-
cause Portland voted that I'VE should
be the capital. We have made it q
beautiful city. We have invested
hundreds of thousands on our roads,
our sidewalks, our parks and the beau
tifying of our homes and making it the
beautiful residential city that 1t is,
relying upon the good faith of Port