Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1917-03-01

MI. MURRAY OF Bangor: Mr.. Speak
er. object to that. That is wholly un-
fair.
MIR. EMERSON Of lewiston: Mr..
speaker. l think that is railroading il
pretty fast.
Inc pending question being on the mo-
tlon of the gentleman from Houlton. Mr.
Barnes, that the rules be suspended and
the bill given its third reading at the
present time.
viva voce vote being taken.
! Ihe motion prevailed and the bill was
given It's third reading and passed to be
| engrossed.
| Inc SPEAKER: The Chair Laws be-
fore the House majority and minority
reports from the committee on claims
majority ought to pass" and minoritv
reporting ought not to pass" on Re
soiVe IN favor Of Michael Burns" The
pending question is the acceptance of
either report.
MT. ROUNDS of Portland: Mr.. Speak
er, when came to Augusta eight wears
ago was against the bill for Michael
Burns and when l came this year l was
against IT, because l had not heard the
evidence. But after hearing the evidence
that was brought in before our commit
tee l see no other way to do than to nav
a just claim
The supreme court of the State of
Nhaihe mas passed on this bill. and the
luil pench OF judges has declared that it
was legal for him to be selling this LIQUOR
| IN the original packages and that he had
as much right to sell it as had any gro.
Gerry store to sell groceries in the city of
Augusta, or -four. or dry goods.
NOW, the evidence before us was that
tne Governor said he was going to shut
up the dirty rum shops. This might
nave been dirty rum shop OF course
while l was not in Augusta at that time
knew something about the conditions
at that time. But the Governor was adj
Vised by the attorney general of this
state now deceased. that he had better
20 SLOW and that he had no right to
touch these goods as the law was at
that time. He was so advised by the
county attorney of Kennebec county. AMI
IL so came out in evidence given by the
man himself before the committee at this
| time, that he had no right to touch these
goods However, he said II will shut It
up and with the power of the Governor
of the State of Maine he took or seized
those goods on Water street and carried
them up onto State street.
The case was fought through the courts
OF Maine and when they got through the
law court of this State ordered the goods
returned. Then they hustled around to
! find those goods and they could not find
them. 1t came out in evidence that they
couldn't at that time-and Mr.. Michael
Burns had to stand the loss of so much
goods because they could not be found.
| In the meantime the law had been
changed, as It has been tinkered with
nearly 60 years. and it had made it
wrong for him to sell those goods in
Maine. He sold what he had left in
Massachusetts.
Now the committee on claims. while
he claimed in his original bill $1,000 and
interest. which brought it up to over
$4,000. took into consideration what he
had lost either by evaporation or 9TH
erwise. [ never heard of it evaporat-
ing in glass; | have in wood. But this
liquor had evaporated in some way on
h'tftI' SliNS', piStty hNe'i tiiN nus hS to
/ House. l would not state that it evap-
GRATED in there, but within three years
| it evaporated, so that he was put to a
loss of some $500 or $500, and the in
| terest brings it up to some $3.50.
| Now the majority of the committee
, have reported, after hearing the evil
dence and hearing what the supreme
court has said, that we should reim-
| burse Mr. Burns fo- the amount of
money that he actually lost, not
through attorney fees, nor in fighting
these cases through the courts. but
what he actually lost and interest
money. Therefore, l rise now in behalf
of the majority report in favor of Mi
chael Burns, and l think it ought to
pass this House, because it has cost
! this State in money for printing bills
alone four times what it would cost
to pay the claim, and. if Michael
Burns bill and the Legislature of
Maine keeps on, it will cost as much
more. / think it is now time that we
settle it once for ALL and / move you
that the majority report Ought to
pass" be accepted.
Mr.. BARNES of Houlton: Mr..
! Speaker, with all due Difference to the
opinion of the majority for the COM
mittee on claims-and / say to you
now that no man in the hall of Rep
resentatives is more ready to yield to
the decision Of a committee that 1 am
on this matter or any other that may
come before Us when a full hearing
has been had-I oppose the acceptance
of the majority report.
1t was 80 years ago that Michael
Burns was a seller in Kennebec
county. That is not denied. After the
lapse of 80 years, 1t is amazing how
case can change in its principles, and
year after year. and session after ses-
sion, there has been what lawyers call
an ex parte hearing before the commit
tee on claims, that is, a hearing where
one side only is presented; and after
most of the actors have passed off the
stage by the laws of nature and most
of the men who had any f1rst-hand
knowledge of the case are dead, it is
not strange that at an ex parte hear
ing the proponents can put up pref
ty good case.
The gentleman from Portland (Mr
Rounds). representing the majority of the
committee on claims and urging the pas
sage of the majority report, Is entirely
right in saying that this matter went to