Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-03-20
MAINE LEGISLATURE.
lcontlnued from Page Flve.o

one-quarter of the total tax. Those VIII,
voted Eyes ard those who had no oppor
tunity to vote at all represent % pc
cent. of the total tax.
The theory of the Fort Kent Eiectri,
Co. before the committee seemed to b,
that the important factor to be urged il
its favor was that it had the support o
s. per cent OF the heaviest taxpayers.
and that their wishes should he regarded
rather than those of the small and pol
tax payer.
The vote of the meeting showed:
Poll tax payers voting no" "A
Poll tax payers voting yes, s
so that the Fort Kent Electric Co. has
IS per cent of the poll tax payers. and
must now argue that their votes should
carry equal weight with those cast By
taxpayers representing 7S per cent. of
the total tax
OF those voting No" IA pay no
taxes at all They We're added to the
village corporation voting list at the
request of the Fort Kent Electric Co.
for the express purpose of voting at
This meeting They represent the
FLOAT ting population class, for the
most part. have never contributed a
cent to the maintenance of our munic
ipal government here know nothing of
our municipal needs, and it may be
said of some of them that they care
less.
1t has been said before that the
check list used at this meeting con-
tanned the names of those voters re-
siding within the limits of the village
corporation who have heretofore voted
in town and State affairs. The char
ter of the corporation provides that
those may vote at its meetings who
are qualified TO vote for governor. renz
resentatives and senator's The Fort
Kent Electric co. challenged the right
of a number of those whose names
were contained on the compiled list.
and who had voted in previous years
in state elections. on the ground that
they could not comply with the Con-
stitutional prerequisite that they must
be able to read and write Let it be
remembered that these persons SO
challenged were not of the "foater"
class. but our own citizens and tax
payers. They were prevented from
voting while '.acaters" exercised the
franchise When private corpora
the expense of the public. uses meth
DDS such as these it deserves and
should have the condemnation Of all
decent men.
PRESENTATION: Durin
the progress of the meeting it was
stated to tie assembled voters by A. O. |
Robbins of the Fort Kent Electric Co, |
and his attorney. A. J. Nadeaa. Esq, |
that il was impossible for the village
corporation To put in its own system OF
electric lights because it had no pow
er to Issue bonds. We are advised by
eminent counsel that it does possess |
that power. We have no way of know
ing how much this Misrepresentation
weighed with the voters, but the par
ty making 1t should not be allowed to
profit thereby.
We have information, which we be-
liave to be reliable, that in order TO |
induce persons to come to Fort Kent
TO vote against the passage of this ar
ticle, transportation charges were paid
where necessary.
Fair and courteous explanation of the
nearing of the article on the part of
those favoring its passage was prevent |
ed by such abuse, insult and misrep- |
resentafion IN the part of those favor |
ing. the Fort Kent Electric Co. that one |
speaker was forced to desist from the |
attempt. A. o. Robbins took part in |
this rough house"
The Fort Kent Electric Co. and those |
actively engaged in organizing the OPP
position to the article, by the use of
q colored ballot prepared by them. and |
by standing in such close proximity to |
the ballot box as to keep close surveil- |
lance on the voter. effectually prevent
ed any secret ballot. and thus exer- |
cised an improper influence on thise |
in their employ. whom II is folly to |
urge were thus left free to make free /
choice
Eliminating jthese employees, voting |
under surveillance those interested in |
the company itself, and the mo tax /
payers" the majority of votes cast |
at the meeting were in favor of the |
passage of the article.
It cannot be said that the majority |
of the voters of the village corpora |
ton have voted against municipal |
ownership. and in favor of private |
ownership, of public utility at a |
meeting at which only so per cent. of |
the legal voters are able 10 be pres |
ent and register their convictions, |
where it is opposed by voters repre-
senting only per cent. of the total |
tax of the corporation, where to en- |
compass its defeat and to promote its |
own interest a private corporation |
brazenly challenges and prevents thcl
voting of citizens and tax payers, who |
have voted for years for State and |
national officials, solely on the ground |
that they are unable TO read and |
write. where fair and courteous de- |
bate is prevented by abuse and in |
suit and rough house tactics, where |
the power Of the village corporation
to install its own system of electric
lights has been misrepresented, where
votes have been obtained by the pay
ment of transportation, where votes
have been obtained by the payment of
transportation, and where employees
are not permitted to vote under cir
cumstanees allowing them free
choice.
We enclose copy of the check list
used at the meeting The check marks