Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1921-04-08

ter, Rogers of JoneSport, Spear OF
RRSSckport: Thomas ThIn of chssteryill L;
Jonesboro.. Weatherbee, Willard--1S.
Mr.. WING of Auburn: Mr.. Speaker.
was the gentleman from Portland.
Mr.. Brewster's name registered as
voting. -e~
The SPEAKER: The Chair recalls
hearing the name of the gentleman
from Portland (Mr Brewster), called
and hearing response.
Mr.. WING: think Mr.. Brown re-
sponded to Mr.. Brewster's name.
The SPEAKER: The messenger
may present Mr.. Brewster if he can
find him.
(Thereupon short recess was TAX
en-, until Mr.. Brewster was found.)
The SPEAKER: The Chair now in
quires of the gentleman from Port
land Mr.. Brewster, whether he was in
his seat on the reconsideration of an
Act to amend Section Il of Chapter
1T of the Revised Statutes. relating
to mileage of members of the Legis-
lature.f
Mr.. BREWSTER: / was not, sir.
The SPEAKER: The Clerk will then
strike out from the roll call the vote
recorded in the name of the gentle
man from Portland, Mr.. Brewster.
and the House will observe the neces-
sity of following the rule of voting in
their SeatS,-not that this has any
application to the gentleman from
Portland. He was not in the room
and the Chair understands perfectly
how the confusion arose.
The total number voting being 1872,
Sc voting in the negative and Sc in the
affirmative, the act becomes a law, so
far as the House is concerned, not
withstanding the veto of the Cover
nor
The Chair presents out of order
for reconsideration resolve authoriz-
ing Michael Burns to bring a suit
at law against the State of Maine
with accompanying veto message of
the acting Governor.
STATE OF MAINE
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Augusta, April Fourth, 1921.
To the Honorable House of Repre-
sentatives:
approval Resolve Authorizing Mich
ael Burns to Bring Suit at Law
Against the State of Maine.
In this resolve it provides that eff
it appears that such prosecution was
begun4and carried on by the order of
the Executive" that suit may be
brought against the State for dam
ages.
The Executive, under the terms of
the Constitution, is charged with the
duty of instigating prosecutions if in
his opinion the laws of the State are
being violated. I am of the opinion
that the passage of this Resolve
might create a dangerous precedent,
and if the doctrine were extended the
State might be compelled to respond
in damages if judge should issue
a Bench Warrant under which per-
son is arrested and compelled to de-
fend himself.
In 1919 a Resolve was passed by
by the Legislature, of which I was a
member. authorizing Michael Burns
to bring suit at law against the State
of Maine but that Resolve did not
contain the provision that suit might
be brought eff it appears that such
prosecution was begun and carried
on by the order of the Executive"
Nothing should be done to hamper
the Executive in the enforcement of
law and for this reason I cannot ap-
prove the Resolve presented to me.
Respectfully,
PERCIVAL p. BAXTER,
Governor of Maine.
The SPEAKER: The question
comes to the House in this form:
Shall the resolve authorizing Michael
Burns to bring suit at law against
the State of Maine be finally passed
notwithstanding the veto of the Gov
ernor? A vote yes is vote in fav-
or of the resolve. A vote no in eff
feet kills the resolve.
Mr.. MAHER of Augusta: Mr..
Speaker, 1 am not going to ask the
members to override the Governors
veto; that is not my purpose but do
purpose to make statement of facts
with reference to this in order that it
may be a part of the Record; and in
order that there may be no possible
misunderstanding of my statement
I shall do the unusual and refer to
manuscript. This much mistaken
and much discussed Burns resolve
is not anything that is unusual or
new nor is it any attempt to aid
violator of law in accordance with
the veto message of two years ago.
In 1887, Michael Burns was engaged
in the sale of original, unbroken, inn
ported packages of alcoholic liquors
in the City of Augusta. Mr.. Burns
had license, under the United States
Internal Revenue Laws, authorizing
him to sell the liquors.
This business was then, and always
had been, a legitimate business I'M
der the statutes of this State and ac-
cording to three published opinions
of the Supreme Court of Maine.
See: State against Robinson, 40
Maine, 2S5 in 1862.
State against Blackwell. 65 Maine,
$50 in 1875.
State against Intoxicating Liquors,
50 Maine, 524 in 1879.
The law in these cases had been
followed by long line of rulings at
nisi prius.
The County Attorney and Sheriff of
Kennebec County both knew that Mi
chael Burns was conducting a legal
business. The Judge of the Municipal