Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-01-17
MAINE LEGISLATURE.
CONTINUED from Page seven)


word has dropped out OF the aictloh-
airy and has become obsolete, what
better can we Go than to look back
and treat the Norll as those people
did treat 1t "hG put II there. We have
had some evidence brought to US ana
we have the opinion of enc OF our
former chief justices Of the supreme
court of Maine. We haNe also had the
version OF the gentleman from
Brunswick which has been referred TO-
The only bill OF evidence we have had
is from Il quotation frcm a text book
used in the schools.
1t is an important thing whether you
are going to submit this question to
the supreme cniir or. mot; but / seems
II to mesHe cannot de bststg than TO 80
sAzAbgai upon the snggs sti6rs made by
1ke gentleman from VfssSHboro. Why
put tnese men z ils2fA~ lhe same
M ssk Why throw ots man down mere
Mil ana see what the supreme
I'LL do about lt? II you want u
81 - Nc y you wan, 10 'a@t POI,
zs| III .. ot 1tias NJ WIT e'a We "o
"a a. $3.50. III, on no. With tbc
800 49,, III ,ba e,,nrema CONT
4 ~. y IS n tiI'ers,sH, take Il tApnlaes.,
5x7zSS fS5F k1.frsNs58 peIf.st. NJ sneak
.< 81 Ssr,x ~ &,eSaf ,he onestion is to
s.. M I'M ~ r. snnrene court il
81 ~, fh4rssS under such auspices
<7TSs an o. mai II is Of sufIi-
5E3porfand fer then, to take
Z ftsI3t@sx ~ ii mat II is a solemn
4 ~ Il M. aud tliat is the only reason
y Should insist That the status of
49, IS Frrar remain. as It is. in order
zfff5f z the snpfeme court may adjudge
Yixst we have a right to have their
waopinion upon IL submit there is no
LTeason for immediate action by our
body upon those motions mat were m
fruuuced, holhipg y pehalhe' our fo'e
Tor United states- senator mas oeeh
TAKEN ii'ere y iiine 70 look INTO .h'a
~ matter all we phrase, ana SUNNI that
we Nill get report from the supreme
court NOR speeoHg ticte va"
somethhg pehulhs anu ssolAe't'iiS NJ
cessi1alnS I'D 1osuce 10 our 'eiio"
Hieihpers IN ai's"ei ~ tiiAo i"'''''
The SPEAKER: Does the Char I'M
derstand that tie gentleman from BEL
TESTIMONIES - LAY on the tapie me mo
- tiopsto reconsider?
- Mir TtsNTON: haNe sinade no mo-
1[r. speaker
h IzfdoE Of Portland: Mr. Speak
# stenflenen the Constitution of
XII a was made FOR the common peo-
~ 81 Maine I IL was made for the COM
3x# H6 people ~ read and for the com
80 N1o2 people 70 understandssxl was not
made Tor iaMSerss ~ Nas not made
~ Y the kecoastTucft0nef OF the supreme
sf0Nff; IL was oxrfesseA IN the Simplest
e MINIS. As - say 1T wsS not made TO
~ subject VI MSpute ~ was doeu-
l6ent to ESTABLISH they rights for all
time Of all stAes peapie, and for that rea-
son the <frHn3GlS, OF that Constitution
used Mti1e S&}Hbfest~ terms, terms that
meant wnatEthey said.
sTt is undisputed in this whole dis
TX s.,lssion that at the time of the making
of this Constitutions in the wear 1919,
the term "postmaster, and the Office
OF postmaster was we'll underst God.
,rbere were nostmasters in those davs
and there had been postmasters before
those DAYS If the makers of the Con-
stitution meant to say "postmasters
excepted" they would have said post
masters excepted" There is no dispute
about that and defy my friend ON
my right (Mr. SMITH any other
gentleman here TO question that The
term postmaster not unknown
at that time. The term 'post-ofieer'
that was used, and say there is good
deal of question about it, man here
can absolutely say what ii means, or
what the history of it is.
Every man has a right To assume
that. as / say from, the fact that in the
"a Constitution were used the simnlest
z terms IF they included nostmasters in
az the term "post-ofrcers', il was A
broader term than ..,,s.-oficers and
included others have learned since
This matter came nm that i'm the mill