Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-01-29

Proponents for Waverly claimed that
in order for East I,oothbay, the pro-
posed town of Waverly, to grow, it
was necessary for her to become sep
arated. East Boothbay is a manufac-
turing town and differs from Booth
bay Center, which is q farming COM
munity. Again while East BoothbaX
has only 40 per cent. of the voters. it
has 90 per cent of the property and
cannot expend properly the town
taxes, of which they pay the greater
part. 1t was argued that East Booth
bay needed water supply for itself
and for Ocean Point summer residents.
but that this necessity never would be
agreed On by the Center voters; sim
iliarly other town improvements.
! Proponents for the new town admitted
that the people Of East Boothbay,
which is proposed to be Incorporated
as Waverly have no quarrel with
] those of the old town. the Center. ON
the contrary, the relations between the
two are and have been pleasant The
, proposed separation is a purely bust
ness matter. East Boothbay stands
ready to assume its proportional share
of all obligations in the financial ar
rangements and property distribution
that separation viii make necessary.
They stand ready to divide with
Boethbay Center the cost of The
bridges and one third of the expense
OF the roads for the coming decade. in
case the separation be decreed They
insisted that a large majority of their
leading men and property owners and
! many residents were willing that
the new town become a fact. Booth
bay and East BcotEbay, it was claim
ed, because of q diversity of indus
| tries, is as far apart already as are
Bangor and Augusta
In his summing UP for the propo-
nents, Judge Maher stated that he was
surprised that the older town should
object at all to the separation as in
eVitably in the future, whether divid-
ed by the Legislature or not. East
Boothbay would in time become a
larger community with n majority of
voters and be likely to be unjust in
ita dealings with the Center, unless
human nature be different there than
elsewhere. He claimed that the pro-
posed division will not injured the old
and be of general good to the State.
It would result like the division Of
Boothbay Harbor, in prosperity to
each.
Attorney BRIGHAM for the DIRECTORS.
insisted that the proposition of East
Boothbay proponents was like taking
4 pan of milk. Swimming off all the
cream and then offering to the other
the skim milk remaining. The division
would give all the cream in summer
properties to Waverly and leave lot
of old roads, bridges and mud flats to
the decreased town of Boothbay. It
was peculiar that of the 81 signers to
the proponents petition, 45 are not
even poll tax payers. Mr.. Brigham
insisted the division would be unjust
It had been brought out by F. NJ
Goddard for the directors that the
main road, over which automobiles
carry their owners to Ocean Point
had been built and would have to be
supported by the old town of Booth
bay, which would in return receive no
benefit. John p Kelley of Boothbay
said that WaVerly, in non residential
real estate would have $751;. $50.
against some $4,000 for the old town.
The total valuation of property gave
WaVerly SO per cent.
Mr.. Pattangall wished to have Mr..
Kelley agree TO a secret ballot upon
the proposed division and have the
Legislature so arrange the matter,
but this proposition met with no ia
vor from his opponent. After a lively
hearing of nearly five hours the COM
mittee went into executive session.
Twenty years ago, it was recalled,
the Boothbay Harbor division hearing
before the committee of the Legisla-
ture took FIVE days.