Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1915-01-26
Conference on Court House.
CONSIDERABLY TALK, BUT LITTLE THAT
IS DEFINITE LEARNED.

About an hour and forty minutes was
taken up with the public meeting at the
court house Tuesday afternoon, called to
consider the matter Of better court &C.
commodations at Rumford, but no FORM
al action Of any sort was taken, and not
much that was definite was learned a.
to the sentiment of the people. The
discussion was principally informal,
some Of 1t very much 80, though 1t was
only for the lesser part of the session that
more than one man was talking at the
same time. Most of the session was 4
sort of running fire OF question and COM
ment.
Forty or fifty citizens of the county
were assembled, the larger portion of
them residents of Paris. The session
was opened by Ralph T. Parker of Rum
ford, who set forth briefly the need of
better court accommodations at Rum.
ford, espe cially for the term of Supreme
Court, for which there is now no suit
able place. There are also, he pointed
out, four terms of Probate Court year
at Rumford, for which provision has to
be made, and Municipal Court, which
is really not q Rumford court but
county court, and there Is need of some
place for the detention Of prisoners,
which Rumford now has to provide.
Judge A. Z. Stearns Of Rumford then
presented and explained briefly tenta-
tive plans for building to accommodate
the wants of the town of Rumford and
the county of Oxford. This building is
60x1S0 feet, contains police station and
necessary rooms in the basement, court
room, jury rooms, and offices for town
and county officers on the ground floor,
and an auditorium with galleries on the
second floor, to seat about thousand
people.
A bill providing for the erection of
such building, which had been prepar-
ed to be introduced in the legislature,
was read by Mr.. Parker. This bill pro-
vides in brief that the county commits
sioners and the municipal officers OF
Rumford shall proceed to erect such a
building, one.half of the cost of con-
struction, maintenance and upkeep to be
paid by the county aud one-half by the
town. The county and the town are au-
thorized by the bill to issue bonds to an
amount not to exceed $4,000 for each.
During the discussion which followed,
Judge Stearns was the storm center. 1t
had not proceeded far before Hon.
James S. Wright of South Paris and
Hon. Fl. 81. Hastings of Bethel, by their
injected questions and remarks, gave in
dicaton that they did not favor the pro-
posed plan. The objection to it was
voiced mainly by them in the informal
talk. Others "chipped in" some, and
what they had to say indicated that they
looked with disfsvor upon the plan or
some feature of it.
1t would be difficult to summarize the
arguments used for and against the
proposition in the running fire of dis
cussion. The thing was looked at from
about every possible angle, and about
every conceivable feature Of 1t was talk
ed over. The Rumford men commended
that there are at Rumford certain county
courts without permanent quarters, and
the Supreme Court without even suitable
quarters. Mr.. Wright and Mr.. Hastings
said squarely that there is ho necessity
for even the one term of Supreme Court !
at Rumford.
There is in the bill prepared no pro-
vision for submitting the matter to the
vote of the people of the county, and the
question was asked, "Why don't you go
to the people of the county,? To this
Judge Stearns replied in substance that
while he believed in the principle OF the
referendum, and had no doubt the prop !
osition would be approved by the vot-
ers if they understood the situation at
Rumford, to inform the people as they
should be would involve SO large an
amount Of labor and expense, devolving
entirely upon the Rumford people, that
be did not think it was fair to ask 1t.
However, the idea that the question
should be submitted to the voters was
pretty strenuously supported by the as
sembly.
While the Rumford men asked for ex-
pressions of opinion from those present,
very few were given except in the way
of the brief questions and comments in
jected into the informal talk, and these
mainly indicated opposition to the plan.
A number expressed themselves az
not favoring joint ownership by town
and county, and some thought it would
be preferable that the town should pro-
vide the needed quarters, and the county
pay fair rental for them.
The whole matter was largely lin the
air" when the meeting was ended BY
general consent.