Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-03-24
MAINE LEGISLATURE.
Continued from Page 81.

forests we have left in this part Of the
State and the farmers who own the ad-
iacent property, that they Shall in some
way be prevented.
Mr.. ROBBINS: Mr.. Speaker: | don I
think we have any right to try ana
make the farmer or anyone else who
has a woodlot preserve it if he wants
to get what there is in it and the money
out of it. don't think the state has
any right to ask them to preserve it
for beauty or for taxes. 1 think it is
a privilege they have if they wish 20
have it sawed up into lumber to have
that done. Out of all the fires we have
had from portable Sawmills l think
there is only one instance that you can
show me where any of The adjacent
wood land has been burned. l didns
see any / have never heard any great
crv being made about the danger from
the nortable mills until now. l don't
sec in what other way these people
who own these lots so far removed
from TIE large mills are going to have
their lumber manufactured If they
don't have it done by means of these
portable mills.
MIR. PETERS of Ellsworth: Mr..
Speaker: ] doubt if the members OF
TIE House understand thoroughly the
scope OF the bill which is proposed.
confess l only read it this morning.
nut l see that there is an inherent OBJ
lection TO the bill, to my mind. in that
it. authorizes the municipal officers ct
a town to require a license from the
owners that operate such portable
mills -authorizing. l should say, the
municipal officers to require a BON
from the owners and operators o.
these portable mills conditioned TO
the payment of all damages sustaine'
by fire in consequence of the operation
of such mill do not think that is
happy expression to carry out the ideas
of the friends of the bill. AS / under
stood the gentleman from Standish (Mr
Coll;rs) in the matter of this bill, that
he feared that the irresponsible opera
tors setting up these mills might b.
TIC cause. through their carelessness
and negligence of damage to surround
ing property, and that there was nc
protection now from that carelessness
and that this bill was designed to give
the owners oil tllnDef Ill tle NiCli,tS
some adequate protection against the
carelassnass Of those irresponsible OPP
orators Now, if that is so. the bill
should be amended. I think. by adding
tie word negligent after the words
"of the" SO that it would read in con-
sequence of the negligent operation of
such mills" because now the way the
bill is worded. the selectmen may re-
uuire the operator to give a bond to
paw damages sustained by anybody on
account of the accidental destruction
by fire of the mill. on account of its
being struck by lightning or any ac-
ticn by which fire is communicated to
the surrounding property. regardless OF
any carelessness or negligence of the
owner of the mill. 1t certainly is not
fair to the people who operate these
mills so to require that they may be
required to give such bond as this
because they never could give it. No
hodv would ever sign bond for an
owner of a mill with the condition Of
1bf, hond that he should pay the dam
age that arises or that would be caused
on account OF the operation Of his mill,