Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1907-03-06
FULL TEXT OF MR..
HEATH'S ARGUMENT
Against the Removal of the State
Capital From Augusta, We'd
nesday Feb. l3, 1907.


Byron D. Verrill, James P. Baxter
and they came here with architects
and with plans; they came, not with
propositions not worth the paper they
/ are written on, as is this-not with
| propositions from the city of Portland
10 issue bonds, but the people OF Port
! iand, individual citizens, went down in
10 their pockets and came here with a
| pledge that, out Of their wealth they
would contribute $50, 900, as they had a
| right to, to donate for a new State
| House.
Hearings were had before that COM
Elittee. eight of whom had gone upon il
for the purpose Of reporting in favor of
a change of the seat Of government.
! They reported what?
After the people had been heard
fron-after the taxpayers of this State
realized what it meant and sent back
their protest to the Legislature, what
was the report of that committee in
| 1SS9-eight of them selected to make
the report? Eight reported that the
matter should be simply referred to the
next Legislature. The matter came
back to the Senate an@ vas debated
fairly and honorably and in dignified
| way, upon both sides. for any debate
| led by Charles F. Libby of Portland
could have been nothing else hut dig
nified. and the Senate voted 10 to seven
against that report. and decided that
! all legislation was inexpedient; and it
came down to the House and there
| the report was accepted without debate
, and without division.
And what is the history of this mat
| te here, Mr.. Chairman. up to the pres
| ent hour? One matter l omitted: II
1905 the Legislature appointed a COM
| mittee to sit during the recess upon
this question. They were empowered to
| look into it fully. If there was any de-
| mand upon the part of the people for a
| change of the capital during those two
| Gears. that demand should have shown
itself. If there was any real pith or sub
stance to this movement upon the "a TT
of the people of Portland. there were
the two years in which it could have
pcon done, when there might have been
patient investigation as to cost, patient
care as to details. when there might
have been two years of discussion and
| elaboration by the people upon so i'm
portant matter.
During those two solid years,
Portland remained silent and waited
until the incoming of this Legislature;
and again there is another secret can
vass. This year. however. the matter
was sent to the appropriate regular
committee. \ hearing was had and the
people of the Statc-not Augusta alone,
but the people of the State-believing
that. when that order had remained
/
from the way in which this thing was
so fippantly talked. that there was no
seriousness in it. came here unprepared
and NY friends here then wanted to
railroad this thing through without a
full hearing.
Now. gentlemen. there are some bus
mess parts of this proposition that it
does seem to me my friends had the re-
! sponsibilty Of informing us about,
first: What is to be the cost of this new
building?
well remember Mr.. Chairman. that
In 1889 we had one particular illustra-
ton constantly thrown I'D in our faces
| in debate. The state Of Colorado had,
just previously to that, started upon
the building of her Capitol. She had ap-
propriated s400,0 600. The proposition as
argued to us. in 1889. was that a mil
lion dollars would take care Of the
needs Of the State Of Maine; and they
pointed us to the appropriation in Col
orado Of 100000 that they in 1889 were
spending It does not seem to be in
ciude1 in these papers-but 7 will state
it. believing it to he true. Mr.. Chair
man. upon reliable information, that
Colorado followed the history of many
states. She spent her 800 900 and she
spent 100000 moro, and she kept on
spending money until. up to the present
time she has spent s., 900 upon that
$500 200 state house upon which Port
land based her argument in 1889: and
even today she is not through spending
and her capitol is as yet unfinished.
Today we have this proposition put up
to u.s. without an architect. without a
plan without statement Of detail
and all thrown open here to problemat-
zeal guessing upon one side or the
other.
Mr.. McLaughlin is of the opinion that
So COO, 600 would be enough. ExMayor
Randall Of Portland, at the other hear
mg--I am informed. did not hear him
said to You that about 600 would
he enough. My friend. Mr.. Reed. came
in here with an elaborate system of
building state houses by the cubic foot
irrespective of what the cost of the
front would be. I take !. that II he
should reduce this building one-half.
that this magnificent front-this splen-
did old Bullfinch front that stands in
architecture as monument to the
grand old architect that designed it
take it that so cents foot, his rule.
would be the same whether that were
there or not 1t is novel way to esti-
mate buildings. 1t may do for the
trial of causes in court, but, IL my
friend ever leaves the profession OF the
law and tries to enter the field of build
ing. he will be a candidate for court
of bankruptcy in a year. (Applause)
submit it to you as business men
that it was not business-lilSe reasoning.
but. even illogical as it was. he built
I'D his building by the cubic foot based
uron misfgures-unintenti based