Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1911-03-02
to q number OF lawyers, including tn
spna1ser IF the House, today. and i.

to & number Of lawyers, including tho
Srea,ser IF the House, today. and Il"
said II as perfectly sal"
Aa-fGr IS I am concerned, | certain
y want I, do What is for the best in
t2regts Of the stat, but | have no
dolht but what Tho Maine Central
RailrOad viii do what il sa,sS it Niil
do. l. never went hack on its Nord. to
NY knowledge. yet. | am opposed Il
tho amendment. ! think il reflects up
on the c"tanittco-aron any commit
toe that reports a bill unanimously
without any opposition whatever.
What do YOU have the committee Cor.
u"es. ard deal with all measures thai
come M fetore them for the best in-
t"reatS Of tho State
Mr.. NfLLIEEN of .Araostook: Mr.
President: ! agree entirely With what
mas been said by the senator from An
"r"sr0G@in ~ I" the probability that
tie Nj inc Central Railroad viii d,
exactly as the directors Promised j,
tic iott"r 10 which he referred,
II ] understand the situation CO.
r"ctly, the objection to the amendment
offered before the committee is taken
care "l in this amendment. ] f.til IL
TN tn" an1endrnont printed
en-" President informed iho soma
tor tina; ia" amendment was S.nat,
Document No. 1a@.)
Mr. President, the laet part Of the
ara' nomcnt Is the part 10 which wisI
10 rei"r, aud ! think il takes care oi
the "hjectien made before the commit
tee. namely, that this would be fixing
an infl"yihl" rate nf mileage: unit
said rates ehall ho increased by con-
sent Of The Ecgislatt ire or under Tho
provisions of any general law now
or hereafter applicable thereto"
That means the rate may be in
creased By application To the rail.
road commissioners or public service
commission and removes the objection
made before tho committee that thi.
would be an inneXiblc rate.
Now. Mr.. President. il strikes me
that this is 2 very simple matter
looking Al 1t in u bISinesslkc way
| am Hnailc Ia Scr ii in any other way
myself Wc arr, directors in a great
corporation and the name ol that
corporation appears in cvory bill on
acted by This Legislature. for tho,
heading Ct each hill is BE it On.
Gc'ed BY the people of the State ot
Maine" and we are here rs members
of the House and Senate acting as di-
rcctore. and NO arc making 4 contract
with another great corporation, tfif
Maine Central Railroad Company, or
in fleet. as has been said. perhaps
the. New York. Now Haven ana Hart.
ford Railroad.
There is consideration On both side:
Of this contract. On tie one hand
the state Of Maine agree 10 consent
t. 4 merger of tho subsidiary railroads
Anal the fact of that is, so far rs thu
Stntr of Maine is concerned, that There
Vill he a loss after thu rebates run
nut on tire somerset of $}S.H53."' q
yen. if figure it CORRECTLY. The
reason for that is apparent {" any
one who will consider the present
ri.t34ad nt taxing railroads We tax
railroads ON Il sliding scale incr"aSe
IS tne gross earnings per mil" il
crease The effect OF this rierg"r will
le In distribute the earnings "t the
whole system over the entire mileage.
Ii the legislation proposed at this
session is pasScd diftcrcncc in loss Il.
taxes under the merger will be even
preattr am not stating that BE-
cause thinl; it is improper for thu
Statc IL 10 H. I think the merged
is reasonable and proper and ! haS.
no objection 10 il on those grounds
| speak OF it because it should be cI-
ident here that there is consideration
on each side. The state is rAmitting
something by permitting this MGR
ger, and the railroad company on the
other hand agrees to do something
for the state, TO give two cent mile
agc rate on all the lines included III
the merge. The question is simply
whether that provision that tn" rail-
rnaG company agrees To. shall h" in
corporatcd III the contract. or tn"
bin authorizing the merger so far
rs ( am concerned. | should think i!
n tirector Of any other corporation,
having made q contract as ono OF
the directors Of his corporation Wiz
some other corporation, involving a
large amount of money and very i'm
nortant matters. went back To his peo-
plc and stated that he had made this
contract and agreed to pay 50 much
n year hut that the other corporation
said they would pay it but didn't want
il in the contract. his Stockholders
would have n right to call him dolin-
cucnt in his duty
As to whether the statement of the
directors is as good as an amend
mont in the bill. | think there can
lie no question about that. ! think
the senator must have misunderstood
the statement Of the attorney general
The question simply is whether this
shall be made Il binding contract. and
while | have no objection to the MGR
ger. and no objection TO the matter
at III, cannot help feeling as a sim
ri, business proposition that there IS
no reason for not expressing in the
contract the whole of the contract,
llr. DONIGAN of Somerset: Mr.
Pre- sident: | move that when the vote
is taken it be taken by the yeas ana
nays.
MIR. MAYO Of Hancock: Mr.. Presi-
dent: If you viii allow me Just a
word, I want to say that was one
who fclt | should vote against TINS
amendment. since coming into the
State House this morning, there has
something come 50 forcibly To my no