Daily Kennebec journal., 1925-02-26

you know. no citizen or the state OF
Mains can sue his sovereign, the State
Of Maine, without the consent Of tho
state, which IL given through the
that he asks. II has been granted be-
fore and there is not one member Of
this House, am sure, who would
want to forbid any citizen Of this
State bringing an action against the
State Of Maine II that citizen had
proper cause for such an action.
That is the situation in this matter.
and I realize It has been before the
Legislature a great many times. and
I want to just briefly explain that 1t
has not been on the same basis as it
has been during the last six years.
Before that, and for nearly twenty
five years, Mr.. Burns tried for money,
brought a resolve before the commit
tee on Claims-there was once a COM
promise offered him but he refused 1t
and no Legislature ever gave him
any satisfaction, and the reason for
it is and it is common knowledge
or the main reason IS, will say, be-
cause his claim was tainted with
liquor. If 1t had been a furniture
dealer or q grocery store that had
been treated in the same way Mr..
Burns has been treated, there would
have been no question but that the
money would have been returned, his
claim allowed, and the matter settled
great many years ago. But If a
man is doing a legal business. it
makes no difference what his business
Is, and he was doing legal business
If you can believe the decisions of
the Supreme Court.
In 1919 Mr.. Bdrns presented claim
to the Legislature not asking for
money, simply for the right to sue the
State of Maine. That starts new
history in this case. Now, we can be
to some extent-by what past Legis-
latures have done, because the State
of Maine has been we'll governed.
Now, in 1919. this bill asking for the
right to sue the State, just. as other
men have asked, was presented to the
Legislature and came before the Jul
dietary committee, and l will read the
names of that committee. They were
Davies Of Cumberland, Dearth of l'e-
nobscot and Deering OF YORK, IN the
Senate. There was, as the House
chairman. Barnes of Houlton, now
member Of the Supreme Court of this
State, Buzzell of Belfast, Baxter OF
Portland, for nearly four years Gov
ernor Of this State, Chaplin OF brlog.
ton, Conary of Bucksport, Manner OF
Augusta, and Murchie of Calais. Inc
matter came before that committee IN
1919 and that committee unanlmousiE
reported that Michael Burns should
have the right to sue the State of
Maine. and the Legislature of 1919,
without a dissenting vote in the
House, accepted the report and passed
II as also did the Senate. 1t then
went to the Governor, and the Cover
nor vetoed the bill and. as In all mat
ters which are not of great state IN
terest. the veto was, as is customarlly
done, sustained.
Now l wish to read an editorlai
which appeared in the kennepec jour
nal a few days after that. Ihe hen-
nebec Journal. as you know, mas al
wavs stood for the Prohibtory Law
and fought hard for it in the days
gone nv. and to show that this matter
has greater interest than just the at
tempt of Michael Burns to estabiish
a legal right, the leading editorial IN
the Kennebec Journal which explained
this case read in part as follows:
"The Supreme Court OF this state;
following a decision by the oni'eu
States Supreme Court. expressly heio
that the sale of liquor by Mr.. Burns
in the original packages was not
violation of the State OF Maine law
as such packages wete subject to IN
terstate commerce as to which Con-
press alone at that time had the pow
or 70 leyislate. The fact that subse-
uuently Congress did leeislate, max
ing 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 legal right. The
bill merely asked that Mr.. Burns be
given permission to bring an action
in our Maine Courts to test the
legality of his claim. An adverse
while a decision favorable to Mr..
Burns would have imposed upon the
State the obligation of repayins him
for his liquors it had Illegally seized
Through what seems to the writer
an unjustifable 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 a citizen for the in
vasion of an admittedly legal prop
erty right, but of refusing even to let
its own Judicial Courts pass upon
the question. Such action is un-
worthy of a sovereign state, and the
writer hopes that Mr.. Burns will live
to see justice done him by future
legislature"
That closed the chapter in 1919
and in 1921 similar bill askin., for
the right to sue the State was
presented to this Legislature. end
again the matter was referred to the
Judicial Committee. There was. on
that Committee, Gillen of Penobscot,
Guerney of Cumberland and Far
rington of Kennebec, in the Senate.
In the House there was Maher of
Augusta, BuZzell of Belfast, Murchie
of Calais. Cole of Eliot. our present
Republican House leader. Wing of
Auburn, Hinckley of South Portland.
and the gentleman who so efficiently
and gracefully presides over us to-
day. the gentleman from Gardiner,
Mr.. Gardiner. That Committee
again reported unanimously that
Michael Burns should have the right
to sue the State-and that is what he
asks for today-and again it came
before the House, and without a dis
sentins vote passed the House and
also went through the Senate with
out dissenting vote, and Governor
Baxter at that time properly vetoed
the bill. and the reason for it was
that the bill was different that it
was in 1919. In it it stated that if it
was shown that the Governor in
stituted the suit, the procedure-and
Governor Baxter properly said that
there waa a difference in that and
that 1t might lead to trouble for
future Governors-and properly, I
say, vetoed that bill because it was
not properly drawn, and the House