Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-02-04


IN the Legislature to grant such re-
| bates, and it does not make much diff
| ference to me whether such a contract
IS legal or Illegal. AS at present ad-
Vlsed l shall not vote to make that
contract, proposed by the gentleman
from Camden, with the Bangor &,
Aroostook Railroad; and if the gentle
men here or majority of them take
| that view, if We don't want to make
that contract we don't care whether
it is legal or Illegal we don't care
whether the supreme court thinks it
is constitutional or unconstitutional If
we are going to vote not to make that
contract with the Bangor & AroostooK
Railroad we do not care what the court
may think about it,
Well, now, if the court is given tins
question. l believe it will take it up
and decide it. They will therefore have
to say whether this proposed law IS
constitutional. If the court on this
question being propounded to it should
hold that the law was unconstitutional,
l can see how it would give great aid
AMI comfort to anybody if he was
pudiation of the old contract If, on
the other hand, the court should take
the view that such contract was con-
lStltutional, | can see how it might be
a great source of comfort to anybody
who was trying to get the proposition
through to give further rebate to the
railroad; and unless we take one of
those positions or the other there is no
lynn
achieved. by our going to the supreme
court and botherng them with this
question.
AS the gentleman from Waterville
has suggested there was resolution
passed by the Legislature two years
ago taking a stand in this matter,
which stand, if we adhere to it, will
render unnecessary any appeal to the
supreme court in regard to questions
of law involved; and l would like to
read that resolution passed by the
Legislature two years ago. l found
this in the Watervile Sentinel and so
it must be correct. Resolved, that the
rebate of taxes granted to railroads
by former Legislatures without regard
to party made in the industrial and
commercial development of the State
! ought NOT Oh IIlHclpltS VI equity anu
| Justice to contracting parties and in
| nocent purchasers be disturbed; but it
is the sense of this body that such
rebates should never be newly granted
| or extended in any manner that would
| be construed as an exemption from
| taxation"
| Now if we are still of the opinion
| which the LEGISLATURE entertained two
-. .L.C-.,t, for,
| us to ask the opinion Of the supreme
| court We need not call on them. l be
| leve that we have the right as a Leg
islatrre, as a House, to say whether
| the occasion is IL solemn one. l believe
we have q right as a House OF Repre-
| seotatives to finally determine whether
the question of law is an important
oucstion. I believe that the court Will
take the right to decide whether there
is a question of law at all. But never
| thclcss it does follow from that pc
cause we are the sole Judges of the
| solemn occasion, it does not 1oiloW
that we should hastily perhaps SUD-
| NIT such question as this ID the su-
| preme court. Many of you nave reau
a recent article written by the cliiel
Justice in which he points out the IN
cxpediency of submitting such dues-
tions to the court unless 1t IS practlca'-
" an absolute necessity or deeineu 50
| for the proper conduct of business ana
the protection of the Legislature ana
the protection of the Constitution, pc
! cause briefly, he says there IS no case
| before the court in such matter no
testimony, there can be no arguments
by counsel; and arguments by couhsei
| do certainly assist the court III arriV-
ing at the truth. And While agree
with the gentleman from WaterFiile
that we have a right to call TINS d SOL
emn occasion L do not oee'!'
if wise on our part or eXpedlent 10 push
| this question to the supreme court d.
The present time, l think there IS hiuo''
force in the suggestion OF the gehtie-
man from Houlton that 1t IS TOO early
We do not know whether we are go
ing TO pass the law or not. Inc com
mittee has not reported upon IT, ire
| gentleman from Watervllle is unduly
and unnecessarily apprehensive In re-
gard to this matter it seems to me. 1t
will be time enough to get the OPINION
of the court if it turns out that we are
,iI,e1v 20 pass the bill; but II we are
,n,il,eIv to pass the BILL as l beileVe
we ar, then it is foolish, unnecessary
and unwise to put this question to the
court: and I am against the order OF
the gentleman from Waterviile ana
am in favor of the motion of the gentie-
man from Houlton that it be lndehnlte-
ly postponed.
Mr.. MONTGOMERY of Camden:
Mr. Speaker. / seem to be somewhat
tho storm center Qaughter). ma
myself in the exercise of the duties or
nv position here in my relation to TINS
bill. Honestly as 1 supposed ana as
believe gentlemen representing the
great body and the responsible pous
of locomotive engineers came to me
and asked me to introduce the Dill
which this order includes. 1t may have
been a ruse on the part of the b. & "a.
Railroad to take advantage OF my in
nocence. and, gentlemen, 1 can afford
to he deceived. But / cannot afford TO
neglect my duties to the people OF this
State. nor will I. People coming mere
and asking for legislation have the
| .;rh+ ~ have il presented, and it is the