Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1923-03-16

ooViate Is the piling up of debts or
counties and towns and the expend,.
lure OF large sums by this state In
the construction bridges. Thi,
amendment will place that power n.
soiutely in the Highway commissjor
because they are the ones who dra "
UP tnese plans and specifications. and
l tnink 1t Is the experience of those
having to do with the highway de,
partment that they are quite firm in
tneir belief that they are right and
al they have got to do to check you
from building any bridge other thar
the one they spesify is to vote no
ana you nave either got to take the
expensive type of bridge or have
none at all.
So. think that the amendment,
will defeat the very object for which
1t Is offered and. gentlemen, l hope
that this amendment will not pre-
vail.
Mr.. ARCHIBALD: Mr.. Speaker,
would like. to add just a word, if ]
may. II what the gentleman from
Parsonsfeld ~(Mr. Granville) says is
correct with relation to the attitude
OF the State highway commission,
assume that what he means to say Is
that II they cannot get their expen-
sive type OF construction put through
they are going to block the whole
bridge building program.
Now l have talked with a mem
Der OF the State highway commission
on this matter myself. and l did not
find any such attitude in his mind
with relation to the matter, and !
believe that IL it Is a question OF
taking our choice between an arbi-
trary determination on the part OF
the State highway commission to
force expensive construction on it,
the sooner we find it out the better
The SPEAKER: The question is
on the reconsideration of the vote
The Chair thinks it best at this time
to explain the matter to the members
as perhaps many Of them do not I'M
derstand the situation. On March 8,
House Amendment A to the bill was
adopted in this House end sent to
the Senate for concurrent action. In
the Senate is was adopted. and on
March 10. the vote reconsidered
whereby it was adopted, and then
passed to be engrossed in it's original
condition in non-concurrence with
the House. Yesterday the House re-
coded and concurred with the Senate
and the motion now before you is
that of the gentleman from Bangor
Mr.. Chalmers, that we reconsider the
vote whereby we receded and con-
CURED with the Senate. Is the
question plain? AS many as are
in favor of reconsidering the vote
whereby we receded and concurred
with the Senate will say aye; those
opposed, no.
A viva voce vote being doubted,
A division Of the House was had,
Fifty-nine having voted in the
negative and 70 in the affirmative
the motion to reconsider prevailed.
On motion by Mr.. Chalmers of
Bangor, the House voted to insist
on its former action an dask for q
committee on conference.
The SPEAKER: The Chair will
announce that committee at a later
time.
On motion by Mr.. Rounds of Port
land. it was voted to take from the
table veto of the Governor on resolve
appropriating money for rebuilding
gentleman. March II. pending re-
consideration.
The SPEAKER: The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Portland
Mr.. Rounds.
Mr.. ROUNDS: Mr.. Speaker and
gentlemen Of this House: ] think we
all agree that the State should not
allow this property to deteriorate
but the question is. just what is
needed to keep the property in proper
condition. Now. 1 want to read to
you letter from one of the members
of this House. addressed to His En-
cellency, Governor Baxter, who was
sent by the Governor to look over
the State pier
Augusta, Me.
March Z, 1928.
Hon. Percival Baxter.
Governor of Maine.
Dear Governor:
At your request / went to Portland
and made a careful examination of
this old portion of State Pier now
leased and occupied by the Eastern
Steamship Co., it being winter time
l could not get under the wharf as
well as in summer. but enough to
satisfy me that the building is old
and delapitated, many places rotten
and weak. but really the most dan
gerous part is that of this $40 TT. in
length from 20 fit. to 80 fit. in width.
which is out over the water and sup
ported on piling which have been
there on the inner end of wharf 40
years, and on outer end so years.
With the manner in which worms
eat off piling in this locality. this is
certainly long enough for structure
of this kind to go.
In looking around under this wharf
I found two caps 80 TT. long support
IN, 10 bor f !, ho a
from under them except one under
each end where there should be a
plling every or it, This was near
the passenger gangway where the
crowds usually assemble when the
boats are landing or leaving, at such
a time if the boats should hit this
part of the wharf with the supports
so weakened the whole crowd might
be thrown into the water. 1t seems
to be a most dangerous situation and
no one with any regard for the safety
of the people would be warranted in
allowing this condition to longer
exist.
was one Of the bidders on the
Portland Pier when it was built and
was there several times while the
old piling adjacent to this same
structure were being removed. and
many of them We're eaten almost en-
tirely Off and I understand the
wharf was no older than the one
you are meditating rebuilding. Rep
resentative f. +. Rounds has pic
lures which anyone can see. show
ing %hese pilings after they were
pulled up.
For many years I have built ana
repaired wharves for this same East
ern Steamship Co., who are leasing
this property and know very well
their requirements. and they are not
in the habit of allowing such con-
ditions as this to exist.
The State owns this property. and
I do not hesitate to say that anyone