Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-03-24
MAINE LEGISLATURE.
CONTINUED from Page TwelveD

mad said repeatedly that there was
nothing there for sale, that the State
had nothing, the State should have
enacted proper legislation and Shout
never have invited the public to bid
on a thing which did not exist under
the opinion of the court.
There is q question in my mind
whether these lands were ever for
feited to the State at all. 1t. is my
opinion as lawyer that they were
never forfeited, so that the mention
in the notice that this was a tax sale
of lands which had been forfeited %
the State is erroneous. l do not think
that precise question has been deter
mined in our State. But it is GER
tainly true that whether forfeited or
not the notice was a notice of a sale
of lands which did not amount to any
thing, which was absolutely void
which could not possibly convey a
title. Now in 1905 and in 1907 and at
this present session of the Legislature
as a result l believe of that very
Keyes case, we have ipaugurated @
system Of getting at description OF
these lands: we have discussed this
illOIIlllS d SiillIliI pIOpoSllloIl WHEREBY
the assessor can get a description of
the land so that when the State OF
Maine puts up these tax titles for sale
they will at least have q description
which will offer something for sale;
and they We're honest enough in 1907
not having any such description, 60
discontinue this fraudulent practice of
inviting the public to bid on a thins
which the court said did not exist
and we are now taking step through
this course of legislation in 1905 and
1907 and 1909 to arrive at point
where we can get assurance that will
mean something and that will give q
man at least a chance.
1t was argued before the committee
that large portion of the money
which Mr.. Reyes paid went to the
county because the State was simply
collecting county taxes for the county,
and therefore it was claimed that his
claim was against the county and not
against the State. The answer tc
that is obvious The wrong was the
wrong of the State of Maine in its
lack of legislation. in its complete de-
fiance of the decisions of the courts
in not enacting some proper leSisla
ton. the wrong was in the mYthod, III
the States system of legislation. The
county was not responsible for that;
therefore the State is the sole respon-
sibIe party and should pay the bill.
AS to the question of precedent, III
,be first place this does not create q
precedent If you examine the various
resolves in the history OF TINS case
Won Will find that there are various
nrecedents where the State has re-
funded money under circumstances
more. or less similar. The gentleman
thinks that this will open a wide door
have had the matter investigated
in the state treaSurers department
Mr.. Wiswell of that department. at my
raouest. went back to the very Hrs'
tax sale that the State ever maze alio
took off the figures of all the tax So es
from 1854. Il think it was When 'hs
svstcm went into operation to the pres
ant time. including the Reyes tax case
ne fulnd that from 1854 until l9oo m
elusive, the total amount OF TAX sa.e
wac RIG. $40. rs. He found during 'h'
.o,,a neriod the total amount that Nae
hoon redeemed from those tax saieS
u.os s13.415.59. He stated to me that II
~, iudpment it would be q conserVa
tive estimate to say that Slo,0oo OF Una
a.. ono should be offset against th'
$50 O0G. that is to say, that Tue o.:.e
$4,000 represented interest Deouct'iis
tho amount of the keyes claim TIA