Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1923-03-17

ARCHIBALD Of Houlton,
HOLMES Of Lewiston
On motion by MIR. Hinckley OF Cum
berland. the Scnate/voted to insist and
join a committee Of conference.
The Chair will announce the COM
mittee later.
From the House: s. d. 1914. resolve
for the laying OF county taxes for the
year 1923.
In the House the action was recon-
sidered whereby this bill was passed to
be engrossed and House Amendment A
was adopted and the bill passed to be
cngrossed as amended.
In the Senate. on motion by Mr.
Hinckley of Cumberland. the vote was
roconsidered whereby this bill was
passed to be engrossed, House Amend
ment A was adopted. and the bib as
amended by House Amendment A was
passed to be engrossed.
Veto Message from the Governor
STATE OF MAINE
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
AUGUSTA
March IA, 1928.
To the Honorable Senate and House
of Representatives of the Slst Legis~
lature:-
return herewith without my ap-
prevail.
"RESOLVE Appropriating Money
for Rebuilding the steamship Sheds
at the State Pier at Portland"
l have given serious thought to
this Resolve and have considered it
from every angle. The problem that
it presents is one of the most diff
f.,
My reason for declining to approve
the Resolve is that at the present
time the State cannot afford to spend
the 100000 called for. On all sides
demands for money are pouring into
the Legislature and some halt must
be called before it is too late. The
tax rate is mounting and it's prog
rcss upward must be, arrested.
Almost every legislator has a
special project in which he is inter
csted and each member will need to
make some sacrifice if any limit is to
be placed on taxation.
As often happens excuses are now
being offered as to why an increased
tax rate is unavoidable. Some urge
that the rate of the last two years
was too low. but with this argument
l am not in accord. 1t may be that
if the tax rate for 1921 and 1922
had been larger this Legislature
would have more easily excused q
high rate of its own making. This
argument is based upon political
considerations and is not sound.
believe in reducing taxes whenever
it is possible to do SO, and am glad
we were able to effect a considera BILE
saving for the people in 1921 and
1922. l do not approve the position
some public men take. that it is not
good politics to reduce taxation be-
low certain point for fear that
inVidious comparisons between state
administrations may be made. If
we were able to carry on the State
Government at a low tax rate in 1921
and 1922 so much the better for all
concerned; the future must care for
itself.
Mary legislators are comforting
themselves by saying that the State
should not practice false" economy.
and that it must not neglect to care
for its property. 1t is alleged that
the people at home will understand
the high tax rate if the matter is
thoroughly explained to them. This
reasoning seems to be making some
hNao"d H Nboul Halls ana
l have reason 10 believe it is not al
together unseltish. The fact is the
people who pay the bills will brush
aside all excuses, for their par
ticular concern is the tax rate that
we impose upon them. Any argu-
ments to the contrary are misleading
and confuse the issue. All agree
that the state should not allow Is
property to deteriorate but the
question Is: just what is necessary
to keep the States property in
property condition" As to this no
doubt there is an honest difference
of opinion when any particular case
ia concerned. 1t is not we'll. how
ever. to offer excuses for increasing
the tax rate, for excuses are not
reasons.
1t has been agreed that the State
is in the pier business" and con-
sequently must continue in ii: that
it must keep up what it has started,
even though a large expense is in
volved. No doubt certain sections of
the west side of the pier need
strengthening; ultimately that side
must be rebuilt. / have weighed
these arguments, and am of the
opinion that the State should COM
plete the easterly side of the pier
before it undertakes new construc-
ton. The wharf should be put in
safe condition so that for the next
few years it will serve the purposes
for which it is now being used
Future legislatures can decide the
future of the pier.
At first / felt that there was but
one course to pursue and that was to
have considered the situation the
more reluctant am I to take af1ir-
native action. l decide this question
just as though l myself owned the
pier and personally was charged
with its management. In such case
my first desire would be 10 retain as
| d tenant the Eastern Steamship Com
| pany so that its service would con-
tinue. If | owned the wharf should
strengthen it where needed, but
would not expend S165.00O at the
present time in rebuilding it along
modern lines. I myself am directly
| responsible for two privately owned
| wharfs in Portland and 1 am treating
| the State Pier as though it were one
of them. This is the only way to ap-
proach the question. Just at the
present moment the piling is covered
with ice and it is difficult to make
| an accurate survey.
In a letter addressed to me by one
of the pier directors the statement
is made that unless the wharf is re-
built this summer the directors will
not allow it to be used after next
August. If the directors consider it
safe to use the wharf between now
/ and August next it cannot be in i'm
mediate danger of collnpsing. l fully
appreciate the valuable public SER
vice that haa heon rendered. HI, tho