Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1908-02-25

in error in stating that the original
bill giving a charter for the extension
of the Somerset railroad had been
"abstracted" from the secretarys Of
flee, from which as a matter of fact,
il has never been absent since it was
placed on file there at the close OF the
in error when it stated that the bill
i'm its original draft did not have "a
word about tax rebates" for this pro-
visicl was there in full WORD FOR
WORD AS IT WAS SUBSEQUENT
LY ENACTED INTO LAW. II
was there when Mr.. Davis
"agrced to do what he could for It. ad-
vccated it" and assisted General
Hainos in securing its passage. 1t was
there when he appeared before the
railroad committee with General
Iainas and others of its friends. 1t
vas there in the bill as reported back
from the committee on February 20
and ,laccd upon his desk in printed
form on February -. 1t was there
V hen he voted for its passage to be
ensrossed on March 4, 1909. 1t WAS
still there when he voted for its pas
sage to be enacted on March 10th.
1t view Of these facts it is some
what difficult to understand how it
was possible. rs the Sentinel states.
that ''thc tax rebating section of this
bill was never called to his tMr. Da-
vis) attention until years afterwards,
and that he promptly objected TO it
when it was called to his attention..
We fear that our Waterville conten-
porary in making the foregoing state
mentS, banked little too strongly up
on its erroneous assumption that the
original bill was not on file at the
secretary of States office.
II may strike the average citizen as
somewhat strange that Mr.. Davis, as
member of the Legislature Of 1907,
should agree with the promoters of a
bill to give it his support. should ap-
near with its friends before the
committee, should have it in printed
form upon his desk, should vote for it
in its various stages of its passage,
only to find out that it contained-from
the very frst--a provision which was
never called to his attention until
years afterwards and to which he
promptly objected when it was call
ed To his attention!
The Journal does not criticise MI
Davis for his support of this measure
It was, in our judgment. the right
thing to do. The old Somerset rail-
road could rot ask financial assistance
from the state. but when men came
forward who were willing to risk their
money ir extending that road through
an almost unbrOken wilderness IL was
emincntly proper that they should re-
ceive the active encouragement ana
assistance Of the state, and it was
accorded them by the Legislature of
1909 in the act which supplied the
cnartcr. WITHOUT ONE DISSENT
ING VOICE
The only criticism to which Mr.. Da-
Wis is properly open is due wholly 10
the fact that having given this meas
ure his support in the Legislature. he
subsequently went out before the peo-
pie end attempted to make political
capital by regulating il. His organ
has in times past endeavorcd to make
peoplo believe that he had nothing to
do with it, We have never yet sue
ccedcd in getting a direct statement
from Mr. Davis himself regarding this
matter. and the erroneous statements
Of his organ above quoted are about
Ill that ever purported to be definite
that has emanated from anyone IRE
sumably authorized to speak for him.
The mistake of Mr.. Davis was not in
his support of the measure. but III his
ATTEMPT to dodge that entirely homer
able record in an effort to play pea
nut politics.
The divorce industry wort N