The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1893-02-02

purpose commends itself to the thought
full people of the commonwealth OF
Maine. The arguments in favor OF 1t
have been repeatedly presented from the
platform and in the press, and later on
will be presented to the Judiciary COM
mittee of the legislature. We desire at
this time to call attention to such obJec-
tons as are made against it. The obJee-
ton which we have heard most frequent
ly is that it is unnecessary. 1t is said
that the whole matter is in the hands of
legislators and that they can put an end
to the practice of voting money to sec
tartan institutions whenever they see fit
without a constitutional amendment.
Theoretically that is true. But practi-
cally 1t is not. The practice has been so
long continued that it has come to par
take almost of the force of law, and the
legislator who attempts to resist it is put
in the position of opposing what seems to
be the will of the people: Indeed the
case is even stronger than that, for not
only has long continued practice created
line of precedents difficult to withstand
but our constitution itself seems almost,
to command such appropriations. There
is therefore very little ground for hope
that the legislature will suspend these
appropriations until it receives direct
and positive mandate from the people to
do so, and that mandate can only come
through vote upon a constitutional
amendment such as it is proposed to
submit to the people.
Another objection which we have
heard urged occasionally is that because
the policy of aiding sectarian schools in
this State is old-seventy years old-it is
right and ought not to be disturbed.
Now while age and long continuance do
create a presumption that a policy is
wise, the presumption is by no means
conclusive. The legislature is changing
laws every year which are old. The
people seventy years ago were no wiser
than they are now, they could see no
further into the. future, they were sub
iect to the same limitations that mortals
now are, and so they made mistakes and
neglected precautions, just as people do
now. Within the last quarter of CEN
| fury it has been found necessary to alter
our constitution in many particulars, and
! to abandon enactments that had the
sanction of the fathers and of many years
of practice. Within seventy years dan
gers to our common school system have
doomed up which were not foreseen at
the time our constitution was formed.
| If the fathers had seen them they would
undoubtedly have taken precautions
against them. But because they did not
take them is very poor argument why
we, who can see the dangers, should
neglect to take them.
The duty of legislators in regard to
amendments to the constitution is clearly
defined by the organic law. When two
thirds of the Senate and House deem it
necessary such amendments are to be sub
| mitted to the people. We have seen it
contended that whenever any considera-
BILE number of people asked for consitu-
tional amendment it was the duty of the
legislature to submit it, simply because
it was asked for. The language of the
constitution clearly negatives this idea.
| Two-thirds of the legislature must deem
the amendment necessary But the word
necessary is a relative term. 1t is not to
be interpreted as meaning absolutely es
sential. That is to say, before the legis-
lature submits an amendment it need
not be Convinced that the thing aimed at
is absolutely necessary to the existence
of the State, or that the people cannot
get along without it. 1t is enough if the
legislature believe that such an amend
ment will essentially promote the gener-
al welfare. And in deciding that ques-
ton it is proper to consider the opinion
of the people in regard to it. Thus
while a general demand for an amend
ment is not of itself sufficient reason
for submitting it, the fact of that general
demand is proper consideration for the
| legislature to take into account when de-
termining whether the proposed amend
ment is necessary. In this case that
1 general demand will be shown to exist.
|