Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-03-19

how much merit there is in it, at this
remote period from the time the trans
action was made, honest men will diff
fer about The majority of the COM
mittee, after hearing the claim, re-
ported according to the report as just
read by the clerk. One of the minori-
ty reports signed by Messrs. Johnson
and kimball. agrees that the claim
is lust, and should be paid but, on the
other hand, instead of allowing in
terest on the claim for eight years,
they say that Mr.. Keyes, fer his at
tempt at speculation in Maine tax
titles, might justly be penalized the
amount of the interest; that is that
he did give to the State of Maine S17,
0G0 for which he received no value
whatever. but that he did it, knowing
that il was q matter of pure specu
lation, and that therefore the State
should have the benefit of the doubt,
and tie use of the money. They also
hold that the State did have in its
possession $t7 goo of De Forrest Keyes
money which, by no maner of argu-
ment, could belong to them. Now let
hit odN htit IilttA II dHRNtlt Ed " tAtN
committee on claims that the state
ment that was sent out under the
authority of the Treasurer of State
that certain lands had been forfeited
to the State was untrue; that, as Il
matter of fact, no lands had been for
feited to the State There is a dis
crepancy in the testimony of the at
that time Treasurer and other parties,
as to whether this young man was
warned by him as to the danger of
putting this money into titles which
might be worthless. | vii say. III jus
tice to the other side, that they have
taken exceptions to the truth of the
testimony Of the former State Treas
urer who says he did warn the young
man that the State did not stand back
of those titles, and that he bought
them ut his peril That is question
in which the two parties in the contro
versy do not agree. Reyes SAYS he
was not warned by the Treasurer that
the State would not stand behind his
title There is no controversy what
ever, and | think the committee is
practically unanimous in the fact that
it was impossible at that time from
the way the state Assessors made out
the description of the lands assessed
for taxes that there is no question
that the State was utterly unable to
give any title and make a conveyance
to any party under the old-fashioned
form of deed which then prevailed.
Now there is some contributory evil
dence which has not yet been brought
out which shows, to say the least pc
culiar condition in the treasurer's office.
Keyes says, by his attorneys, that he
paid S316-that in this original check
that was sent was included 1915 for 3l5
deeds covering the property that he sup
posed he had bought. Now it seemed
to be also the unanimous agreement OF
the committee that many of those deeds
were repetitions-that is, they We're deeds
going back some 20 years on the same
property, and the deeds We're given-per-
haps 20 deeds covering one supposed piece
of real estate. This money does not APP
pear in the treasurer's books as having
gone to the State at all. This 1916 Went
into somebody's pocket for making out
the deeds. That is evident from the tes-
timony submitted to the committee. Now
| am not arguing as to the justice or In
Justice of this claim. l am trying to sci
Sit before you as we'll as | can just upor
what grounds the majority o. this com
mittee on claims based the report that
they have. In 1903 this claim was taker
up in the committee on judiciary, ano
that committee was then, as now, made
up of some of the brightest legal talent
in the two Houses. The committee or
II. liz
and by a large majority report-I an
not sure whether it was an unanimous
report or not--a favorable report was pu
before the Houses. That favorable re
port was accepted in both Houses. ane
the resolve giving back to Mr.. Keye'
the money which he had paia over t
the State. with interest on the same I'll
to that time, was passed through botf
branches of the Legislature by gooe