Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-02-22
Moments to Hastings
Look for Loopho|es.
L1Ipn BY Attorney General
! |h Alien Pauper Case.
,..uIitee Hearings for the Week.
Increase In Fire Losses.

nm
V s,ion among the Legislators who
!, mi return home for Sunday is the
.,nos amendment repeating the So
", .little Joker" in Chapter 1856 of
poyised Statutes, the hearing up
-h;cb before the committee on tenn
.nce developed such unexpected
'.,nres Friday afternoon. Since the
.rrg those who are opposed to the
,,ra claim to have discovered by
go, If the Revised Statutes GER
u. features in connection with. the
~',dment, which appear to have been
Isrsrlooked by both the proponents and
I'M. ,emonstrants at the hearing Fri
rhsy nojut out that the sections in
Ic1a,tar % of the Revised Statutes con-
.s,rr the phrase land IN addition
.seratl Imprisonment" are only Sec
.ioDs Il. relating to single sale, AZ, re-
,.,irr IN common seller, A, which i'm
,.ss nunishment upon keepers of
,rnsng houses ana tipping shops. 40,
I oors,np search and seizure, and "a,
Y(0mpldll1I against 'i"iiiie'i4e w iid''oi7'
r,rb have been libcled. 1t is these
f.ectons only which are covered by the
cords when it is provided that h.
ssball be punished by imprisonment and
4spe or by Imprisonment or fine, and
h addition thereto imprisonment, he
NAV be sentenced to both" IN Section
II of Chapter 1856, which is repealed by
A|,be so-called Hastings amendment.
They further argue that since the
aHastirgs amendment simply takes
.hyay the discretion of the judge in
1ahese cases and does not affect Section
IN Of Chapter % in regard to illegal
4Yossesson and deposit and Section =
b h Chapter %. relating TO liquor null
4 saDces, for which offences fine or i'm
.NprsOnment are provided, it by no
.Nnleans completely closes the loOpholes,
Athrouga which a liquor seller may es-
4tape Jail sentence Said Il man, who
4s opposed to the measure Saturday:
5"What is easier than to indict man
Nor liquor nuisance instead Of any or
1.-The offences named in the various sec
II tons o. Chapter %, which contain the
words, and in addition thereto impriS.
tnment'?'
4 On the other hand the friends of the
| Hastings amendment argue that it
does the things it purports to, IN that
4 it repeats that portion Of Chapter 136,
which makes Ineffective the provisions
/ Of Sections al, a., 40 and "a of Chapter
-, and that the other sections or Chap
! ter % and the second mentioned of
| Chapter y in regard to liquor nut
sanccS and other common nuisanccs are
simply left as they We're intended to
4 he when the laws We're framed. The
main objection made to the portion of
Section | of Chapter 1856, which is re-.
pealed by the Hastings amendment *
mat 1t destroys the obvious intent of
lhe several sections mentioned of
| Chapter -, which provide Tor fine and
Imprisonment of liquor sellers. 1t is
aS0 argued that inaSmuch as hcrcto-
lore liquor sellers have been prose-
cued On the same evidence both for
'he offences mentioned in the sections
| u Chapt"r -, which provide penalty
Oh me and imprisonment and for com
non nuisance are likely to be in the
iu'uf"' and that if the liquor seller
escapes jail penalty on his liquor nui-
'"'Ve case he cannot on the other
'"Ses' 1hcy also argue that in the
'Nuor nuisance cases. where the fine
jan IS optional the fine is put so
""eh higher that many sellers would
nave difficulty in raising II and would
Id'e |" 90 t" Jail anyhow.
an important opinion bearing ON
r"H hat'pcrs mas been handed the
'V'''of and Council by Names at
.'"'F general, Warren G.. PhilbrOok.
ue request of the members Of the
vO"'li asking for the intent of Chap
wi ~ OF the Public Laws OF 1905,
""Cn was to the effect that the Re
"'l statutes shall not be construed
MAKE any town liable for relief
,u'"'Shed to an alien or his family
,a'e sad statutes went into effect.
st A' ftl'ef furnished any such person
, ..4' oe within the provision of Sec
w., Ya % OF Chapter -. Attorney Cen
'' "a" fhlihrook's opinion is as follows:
anal ...'r |" the passage of the act in
s'S"oh there seems to be no doubt
Na' an alien might. under our statutes.
,sa ' Paupor settlement in this State
m u mat having gained such settle
~ lie was entitled to the same sup
~, nom the town, in case of dis
,n DIS would be enjoyed by a citi-
s..., " 'he state who had gained such
~ .''''''eht Obviously then. prior to
e,. passage of the act In question
,s a's might arise in which a town
larper 'i'0' :
N -" case decided many years ago
" ,is state, Belgrade vs. Dearborn
elos 0o4' legal settlement was de
w 10 be settlement which gives
IN s"' TO a support from the town
s,, saSeS OF falling into distress and be-
Y ns hecessitous. In other words.
"a pauper is entitled to support from
N sven town it is because he has gain
eo,'. Pauper settlement therein 1t
n s' seem to be equally plain that
,a;n. any reason a person has not
sna or cannot gain the right to a
ma po'. from town then he has not
n :, 'diihot gain pauper settlement
- mat town.
H. ne u act in question declares that
Mn, i.eNised Statutes shall not be con-
IN 10 make any town liable for
f,n' ,eief furnished to an alien or his
tffoa. since said statutes went into
sar,- ms seems to be one way OF
,iss. ns that an alien cannot gain a
Sta. 20 support from a town i'll our
i. w, honCe it would seem that under