Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1917-03-03

Hon. William II. AOOIey VI VI IAdhN
opened the case before the judiciary
committee for the proponents OF the
bill which would give the judges Of
the supreme court concurrent 5urisdtc-
ton with the Judge Of the superior
court Of Cumberland county in divorce
matters. the bill being heard before the
judiciary committee beginning this aft
crnoon at 2.30. Said Mr.. Looney.
In Cumberland county since 1913 the
superior court has had sole jurisdic-
ton in all divorce cases. the law be-
ing changed at that time. In 1911 the
superior court of Cumberland county
was given concurrent jurisdiction with
the supreme court in all divorce cases
while in Kennebec county sometime
prior to 1911 the superior court was
given concurrent jurisdiction in divorces
with the supreme court.
by the act of 1913 Cumberland coun-
State. was interdicted and carved out
as a separate divorce zone and held up
to the contempt and ridicule Of all the
counties of Maine and all Of the coun-
ties of New England.
Since Maine has been a State every
libellant and every libelee has had the
right of having a voice in the selec-
ton of a judge who would decide his
destiny in divorce cases. I know that
many pseudo reformers say that this
is right that should be granted to no
parties in divorce proceedings. That
right, however. is granted in every
county in the State except Cumberland
county.
"A right so important and which is
possessed by all other citizens of the
State should not be denied to the peo-
pie of Cumberland county and ought not
have been taken from them without the
fullest discussion"
Mr.. Looney declared with much feel
ing that when the bill giving the su-
perior court of Cumberland county sole
Legislature Of 1913 there wasn't five
lawyers in Cumberland county that
knew it was pending.
There wasn't a petition for 1t before
the Legislature from the bar of Cum
berland county or from the people of
Cumberland county," he went on.
THAT bill was practically struggled
through the Legislature Of this State
and until the acts and resolves Of that
session appeared in printed form there
was not seven lawyers in the city of
Portland who knew that such law had
been passed. I ask you, gentlemen Of
the committee. if that was a fair and
honest attitude on the part Of the franz
ers of that bill?"
Mr.. Looney further charged the
friends of the bill with urging before
the committee that the justices of the
supreme court wished the change and
said that was why 1t was made Be
cause it was said the supreme court
demanded it the bill vas rushed through
the Legislature but I challenge that
statement, declared Mr. Looney, raising
his voice. Il assert that there is not
a particle of evidence to support that
claim and I challenge the friends Of the
bill to point out a single justice who
was in favor of the bill. 1t is q fact
we'll known to you. gentlemen of the
committee. have always religiously re-
fused to interfere with measures be-
fore the Legislature openly or clandes-
timely and have always scrupulously re-
Trained from any attempt to control or
influence legislation.
But it is said against the passage
of this bill that the superior court has
not granted as many divorces in Cum
berland county as were granted by the
supreme court. They quote the number
of divorces granted during the years
1914. 1915. 1916 respectively, viz, 113.
122. and 112.
1T is also said that during those
three years 1853 cases have been dis
missed and 35 denied. In other words
OF the $50 cases before him he threw
out 203 or about 81 per cent. When
the advocates Of the present regime
fired that gun were they aware of its
recoil?
These figures admit Of but one con.
clusion and that is either that the
members of Cumberland bar were
woefully careless and ignorant not tc
use stronger term, or that the supe-
rlor court In it's divorce decisions
wantonly or ignorantly violated law
and evidence. You can take either
horn Of the dilemma, these figures con-
stitute scathing indictment either OF
the Cumberland bar or of the superior
court
Permit me to say also that the
members of Cumberland bar who adj
vocate the passage of this bill are &C
tuated by no personal feeling against
the present judge Of the superior court
1t is simply impossible in many cases
for persons who desire a divorce from
the bonds Of matrimony to secure JUS
tice in Cumberland county. This NAV
happen no matter who is Judge. The
law which arms the court with such
exclusive. tyrannical power is wrong
IN principle. vicious and unjust in
practice.
III petitioner is consciously or nm
consciously convinced that the court
is preJudiced against him and that JUS
tice will not be melted out to him he is
absolutely powerless in Cumberland
county.
Judges are mortal They are not
infallible. They have the same in
firmities and limitations common to
other sons Of Adam. It Is, l submit
no reflection when a court, no i'm
parchment Of his honor's probity. abil-
ity or integrity. for litigant to de-
mand that his case be tried by anoth
err.
by Section "a Of Chapter 81 of the
Revised Statutes it is provided that