Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1916-02-09
A "Judae" Holds Law in Contempt.

- OuO3S T1OIOo Ia" III SS's~''Fe
The chairman Of Lewiston's Demo-
cratic city committee announces, in
substance, that Mayor-Judge Brann of
that city will defy, or ignore. the ST.
preme Court decision that the Office of
mayor and Of Judge Of the police court
ARE Incompatible" The rescript,
drawn by Chief Justice Albert r. Saw
age in the Rockland case Of Police
Court Judge Howard, would seem to
cover the Lewiston case as we'll as if
written for it. The following para
graph from the rescript would furnish
law enough in similar situation for
most law abiding citizens:
IF a person claiming to have been
elected a mayor Of city is after the
election, appointed to. and accepts the
incompatible Office Of judge of police
court Of the same city, he thereby va
Gates his right to the office Of mayor
and has no further interest in, and
cannot maintain petition under the
revised statutes. 1t is only when petit
TONER Is SHtltfcu ny Id" ~ llcIb ti4N
office claimed by him that an of6er may
be issued to the party unlawfully
claiming or holding the Office, to yield
it up"
Last year when Judge Brann became
the Democratic nominee for mayor Of
Attorney General Pattangall who gave
the opinion that the two offices could
not legally be held at the same time
by the same person.
Now that the Democratic attorney
general has been reinforced by the SUI
preme Court. Lewiston must be pretty
well convinced that 1t has had no legal
mayor in the year just closing; that
its municipal judge has not due respect
for the laws of the State, and that its
mayor cares not whether in legal pos
session or not, so long as he holds the
offices.
Mr.. Brann was asked, Monday eve
ming, if he had anything to say regard
ing the court decision and replied that
he had not. When asked if he would
run again for the mayoralty, he re-
piled: Certainly | will run"
The city Democratic organization,
we understand. will stand behind Brann
in his defiance Of law; indeed when has
not a Lewiston Democratic organiza
N n
law? But the demonstration of braz-
en- disrespect Of a higher law than the
personal liberty" of man who wants
office and it's returns, legal or illegal,
must be enlghtening to the voters of
Lewiston. With the judge of its po-
lice court in contempt Of the Supreme
Court and persistent in his illegal
course, will the legal voters Of the An
droscoggin city go ahead and partici-
pate in such a form of outlawry, or
bury this man Brann as he deserves.
under an avalanche Of ballots?
The Lewiston Sun, independent Dem
ocratic, editorially says:
May IL please the court II now the Law
Courts decision as to Rockland could be
amended to extend the Constitution OF
Maine and the common law clear to
Lewiston, it would seem that since the
first week in January. we have not had a
Mayor. And that in about a month the
election of Brann Mayor will deprive US
of Judge.
There ought to be legal ability enough
in the Republican party to get this abuse
this defiance of a fundamental principle
of our government-into the courts.
But of course the right way is to bury
Brann at the election. 1t is bad enough
to hog the Offices when the offices are
compatible; when a citizen shows so lit
tie respect for the form of government
under which he lives. there ought to be a
public opinion clear and decisive enough
to make it impossible for him to hold
any office.
Lewiston is disgraced.
The Democratic party is disgraced.
In the light of the decision handed down
by the Chief Justice, there is opportunity
for abundant litigation over the acts of a
Judge who is not Judge, or a Mayor who
is not a Mayor.
How can any taxpayer or wage Garner
in Lewiston afford to vote for Brann?
How can Congressman McGilicuddy az
ford to go from such a Lewiston up
country to ask respectable Democratic
eupport?