Oxford Democrat

For the Democrat.

Annexing part of Paris to Norway.

Your readers have heard, already, something about a petition signed by certain citizens of Norway, praying the Legislature to set off some five double lots, or about eight hundred acres of land from Paris to that town. They are also aware that this annexation is asked for the public and ostensible reasons that the road from South Paris may be kept in better repair, and that the families—two or three in number, residing on this land—may be accommodated with church, school, and mail privileges.

It is perfectly obvious on the face of this petition and these reasons, that there is something hidden, secret and designing, on the part of the originators of this scheme. The few inhabitants upon this land cannot suffer for the want of church, school or mail privileges; nor is it true that the community has ever suffered for the want of a good road. The reasons, therefore, set forth in this petition cannot be the real ones for this annexation. It is impossible even to suppose that such is the case. There are more real and material reasons for such a change as is asked for than these: and there are still others, not so material, which appeal directly to the local pride, not to say self-interest and aggrandizement of the petitioners' municipality. These other real reasons have appeared in the investigation before the committee on divisions of towns: and they prove that the petition did not set forth the true purposes of the petitioners.

At the hearing before this committee various matters were discussed, and the conclusion was arrived at that three-fifths of the prayer of the petitioners ought to be granted: and that three of the five lots, or some five hundred and fifty acres of land ought to be set off to Norway, because the latter town needed it for building, parade and other purposes. The supposition is, that this committee were furnished with all the facts necessary to a fair, just and reasonable conclusion. It is certain that this committee had before them all the maps necessary to illustrate the precise state of things as they exist geographically, municipally and civilly. And it is equally certain that from the able delegations from each town, the committee were furnished with all the arguments, reasons and representations, pro and con, which ought to influence the conclusion.

I am not personally acquainted with a single member of this committee on division of towns. I never had that honor. I take it for granted that the members of which it is composed, are intelligent, high minded, and honorable men; and that they are legislators of, at least, common equity and experience. And I ought further to say, that circumstances, actions and results ought, perhaps, to satisfy common citizens, that every single member of this committee, has, in his decision, been uninfluenced by personal solicitation or importunity, and has acted with disinterested impartiality. If such were the case, I have no reason, as a looker on, to complain of the decision. But having investigated the case to some extent—having looked at the necessities, not wishes, of Norway—at the geography of Paris as exhibited after undergoing the carving knife operations of the committee, and after looking at what a fair decision would have been, I venture to say, that another committee—intelligent and able as I have supposed—and free from partiality as I have supposed, cannot be found in the United States, or within the range of civilization, which would have formed and promulgated such a conclusion. Under the circumstances the decision is wrong, a glaring piece of unmitigated injustice. If the committee had used its knife a step farther and taken off South Paris village, annexed it, and made a coast town of Norway, the deformity of the injustice would scarcely have been made more palpable or hideous. If this outrage is sanctioned by the Legislature, it will create a feeling of dissatisfaction which can only be allayed by restitution and repeal.

What Norway needs I may not know. What she asks I know; and I know it is wrong to grant it. If she needs land from Paris to build upon, that necessity can be made to appear, however much facts and history may seem to show to the contrary; and if such necessity should appear, no power ought to exist anywhere, on any principle of justice, to grant her more than such necessity requires. On this principle, no authority should undertake to grant her a part of the franchise of another municipality and lots beyond what was clearly necessary. If this be true, as a principle, the wrong—not to say absurdity—of the decision of the committee, is seen in the fact, that fifty or a hundred times as much land is proposed to be annexed as Norway can ever find necessary for building or other necessary purposes.

I can only hope, that as the committee on division of towns has committed a great error in its decision, and granted to Norway what never should be sanctioned, the Legislature will review the matter and reverse the action of its committee.

JUSTITIA.