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


Paid for transcript of testi-
! mOny 1000
John H. Potter, services in
| Municipal and Superior
courts ................. 50.00
H. M. Heath, for argument
in law court ............... 5000
Judge ]. w. Symonds coun-
sci fee and retainer ...... 10000
Patrick A. Collins of Boston,
counsel fees and retainer. 200 90
VIM. Henry Clifford of Port
land, retainer and counsel
IeeS 10000
Paid clerk in congressional
library for briefing federal
| statutes ..... ........L.... 5000
Loss on liquors, seized ...... 10000
Total NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.. s1,279.94
The total expenses incurred in de-
Tense of prosecutions being $1,279.94;
the interest on this sum for 81 years
amounts to $2.3s0.49, making a total of
$3,660.43
The law court decided in the Burns
case that Burns was right and Sher-
if McFadden was wrong, yet the Le-
gislature of 1895, by Chapter 81 of the
Resolves. voted to pay Sheriff Nc
Fadden his expenses in the litigation
growing out of the seizure, to the
amount of $4s3.60.
This claim does not include, approx
imately, $500 expended in trips to
Washington, Liverpool, and for de-
partment and custom house expenses
and counsel fees in establishing the
business illegally broken up and de-
stroyed, nor does it include, approx
mately $500 expended in litigation in
the United States Court in an action
against Charles r. McFadden, nor
approximately 5000 loss on a shipment
of goods in the custom house at the
time of the seizure by Sheriff McFad-
den.
l quote also from an editorial fol-
lowing the veto of two years ago:
I'm recent issue of the Journal
an associate of the writer commend
ed the Governors veto of the Michael
Burns resolve. His brief comment
was based on the GdFernor's evident
assumption that thesclaim of Burns
grew out of his transactions in an
the fact
1.-The Supreme Court of this State,
following a decision by the United
States Supreme Court, expressly held
that the sale of liquor by Mr.. Burns
in the original packages was not a
violation of the Maine law, as such
packages were subjects of interstate
commerce. as to which Congress
alone at that time had the power to
legislate. The fact that subsequent
1y Congress did legislate, making
such packages subject to State law,
merely emphasized the legal property
rights of Mr. Burns at the time his
liquors were seized by the State.
"The question before the Maine
Legislature, therefore, was simply
that of reparation by the State for
! the invasion of a legal right. The
bill merely asked that Mr.. Burns be
given permission to bring an action
in our Maine courts to test the legal
ity of his claim. An adverse deci-
sion would have ended the case,
while a decision favorable to Mr.
Burns would have imposed upon the
/ State the obligation of repaying him
for the liquors it had illegally seized.
Through what seems to the writer
an unjustifiable assumption on the
part of the Governor. the unanimous
decision of the principal committee of
the Legislature was reversed, and
the State of Maine is placed in the
position not only of refusing to make
restitution to citizen for the inva-
sion of an admittedly legal property
right but of refusing even to let it's
own judicial courts pass upon the
question. Such action is unworthy
of a sovereign State, and the writer
hopes that Mr.. Burns will live to see
! Justice done him by a future Legis-
| lature."
/ take the time now to read this
| into the Record, because it is very
| doubtful if the Burns resolve will
ever again bother a Legislature of
| Maine. Michael Burns, broken in
health, now at the Togus Home,
where he is by virtue of his rights
as probably the youngest enlisted
man in the Civil War,-four weeks
ago this man saw his only sister to
the grave, the week following his
wife, and l feel confident that ere
two years have passed Michael Burns
will be beyond seeking reparation
from Maine Legislature. But in
| justice to Mr.. Burns, and in order
that this may be upon the Record
permanently, and not asking this
Legislature to override the solemn
judgment of our Governor. 1 make
| this statement.
The SPEAKER: The question be-
fore the Legislature is: Shall the re-
solve authorizing Michael Burns to
bring suit at law against the State
| of Maine become a law notwithstand-
ing the objections of the Governor?
| A yea vote upholds the resolve; a
nay vote finally disposes of it. The
Clerk will call the roll
| YEA-BartIett, Belliveau, Buzzell.
Carroll, Doyle, Forbes, Gardiner. Ger
IRISH, Larrabee Maher. Main, McIlher-
on. Morneau, Murchie, Murray, PEN
nell. Rogers of Rockland, Small, Spear
of Limestone. Wing, Wiseman-21.
| NAY-Adams. Atherton, Audibert,
Austin, Baker, Barney, Barwise, Bean,
Bennett. Blanchard. Boothby. Bragdon
Brewster Of Portland, Brewster of
Chadbourne. Chalmers, Chamberlain,
Chandler, Chase, Cherry, Cordweil,
Cole, Crafts. Cram, Croxford, Daigle,
Dain, Davis, Dodge, Downing, Dun
ming. Eastman, Gilmore, Pagan, Finnell,
| Gagne, Granville, Hartman, HAYES