Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1905-06-30
That Local Option Bill.

man, IN MS card puoHsneu IN tue couhty pa
pers last week, says:
"ln the first place no local option law
for Montgomery county was passed by the
House of Delegates at the session Of 1902.
The Anti-SaloOn League bill passed Its second
reading, then, on my motion, was recon,
mitted to the Montgomery delegation ana
was handed over 10 me by the CHIEF CLERK
OF the House in the presence OF the entire dele
CATION, and while the House WAS in session.
The bill has remained in my possession ever
since, and there has not been a moment from
the time this bill was offered until now when
the bill WAS stolen or lost or misplaced"
Though wholly ignorant Of the authorship
OF the article TO which this card is reply, 1t
10 deemed proper to call attention to the TACT
that this matter was carefully Investigated by
the duly constituted authorities Of the Anti
Saloon League over three years ago and
their report was published In the county
papers on May 2, 1902, and reads in part as
follows:
"Without malace, but in the interests Of
purer politics, We make the following state
ments:
Before the election, Mr.. John P. Sellman
told the League, through one of it's officers,
that he was in favor Of the proposed amend
ment to the local option law imposing an
Imprisonment penalty and would introduce
such measure aud endeaVer TO secure its
passage through the House. Mr.. Sellman
not only tailed to keep this promise, but of
fered for passage bill radically opposed to 1t.
II is true, he afterwards did offer the imprison-
ment bill, but under such circumstances as
did not mitigate in the least the violation Of
his original promise Under the force Of
considerable pressu re from the many citi
Eens OF the county the members OF the House
and Senate agreed finally, several days be-
fore the close Of the session, to see that the
amendment passed. Notwithstanding this
unanimous agreement among themselves,
Mr.. SellmAn, as explained 10 the appended
article, secured possession OF the bill from
the engrossing clerk, secreled 1t, and the bill
has not been seen from that day.
IL will be seen in the recital Of the fore
going facts that the bill never reached the
Senate, and judging from all the circum-
stances attendant on the case, it was never
intended that IL should get there. II 1t had
been brought to q vote 10 the House we have
reason TO believe 1t would have passed that
body. This would have sent II over TO the
Senate. But il did not reach that stage be.
cause the bill was taken from the engross-
ing clerk and put out of the way, aud has new
er been seen since.
The only known friendliness Of Senator
Jones for the measure,was his agreement with
the House Of Delegates in conference that the
amendment be reported favorably. At al
other times, while openly avowing his friend
ship for the local option law, 10 converse
lion with friends of the amendment he ques
toned the propriety OF its passage and in
variably gave the impression that he was op
posed to Il.
The following is the appended article from
the Maryland SedrchligM:'
OF the temperance bills that failed, mont
perhaps Is more 10 be regretted than thu
Montgomery bill adding an Imprisonment
penalty for offences against the local option
law, committed subsequent 10 first convic'
ton. There was no reason for this failure
except the unwilingness OF Senator Jones Il
agree 70 its passage and the failure Of the
county delegation to unite on policy tina
would insure its success. By a combination
of circumstances the bill was finally intro
duced by Mr.. Sellman, but not until after be
had introduced a re-submission bill by re-
quest. Later the re-submissionists, q part oil
whom were evidently anxious to emphasize
factional party opposition toward part o.
the county delegation, agreed to favor tn,
proposed amendment II they could not gel
re-submission. Following which a confer.
ence Of the Senator and Delegates was had
at which we understand 1t was agreed tina
the bill to strengthen the law should be re
ported favorably with an amendment max I'M
the penalty for conviction subsequent to
first offence imprisonment without fine.
In this form the bill went to third reading
In the House, when, after a protest had bee
made by Mr.. Almoney, Reading Clerk In th
Senate, from Rockville, against the progress
the bill was making, Mr.. Sellman presente'
an order to have the bill recommitted to tn
delegation, and although Mr.. Robertson
little later moved successfully a reconsider.
alton Of that vote, the effect OF which was "a
| allow the bill 10 remain on the 6les, Mr.. Sell
man. on the strength of his order, made un
due haste to get possession of the bill, which
thereafter remained In his possession. This
| action Of Mr.. Sellman was insxcusable, az
the ordinary course would have been to allow
the bill 10 go to the chairman, Mr.. Johnston,
even II Mr.. Robertson's melton TO reconsider
the &C ton had not been carried. In this Mr..
Sellman sorely disappointed bis friends, and
absolutely ignored 1900 OF the best voters In
the county who had petitioned for the bill
His record was sorry one.
At all times Senator Jones sought to ex.
cuse himself from supporting the measure,
although the House Delegates certainly un-
derstood him at the conference held 20 agree
TO Its passage. Mr.. Benson sought to remain
ton, though he would not have been In the
way Of its passage probably could 9 vote
have been had. Mr.. Johnston never claimed
to be temperance NAN, but after the bill
had been reported, was consistently ready at
any time 10 support II at every stage. Mr..
Robertson, we believe, did all that could
be done 10 advance the measure with the ex I.
cepiion, perhaps, OF not asking the House to
compel Mr.. Sellman TO return the bill to the
files after the motion TO reconsider had car
ried. He, perhaps, being . friend OF Mr..
Sellman did not want TO bring him into any
unpleasant notoriety.
Had the delegation been q unit 10 response
TO the requests Of the 1900 voters whose
names were on the petitions, q number OF
which would have been doubled but for the
extremely bad weather, the bill would have
become law. The responsibility must rest
upon those who, either by indifference or OPP
position, blocked Its way, and hereafter they
must share with others the responsibility, II
there be not satisfactory enforcement oil the
local option law. The A. s. League will con
time TO do Its best to close up the speak
easies" OF the county. But the difficulties
will be prolonged because certain members
OF the county delegation at Annapolis failed
al the critical momsnt. The contest has only
begun, and the issue will be pressed till vic
tory comes.
By order Of the Executive Committee Of
the Anti-Saloon League, April 20, 1904"
At best, Mr.. Sellman states only part Of
the truth. His motion 10 take the bill from
the third reading file and re-commit II 70 the
Montgomery county delegation was carried
at the night session of March "a, 1902 See
House Journal, page 1895 but he fails 10
state, az the Journal shows, that on the same
night the House, on motion Of Mr.. Robertson,
reconsidered this action aud placed the bill
back on third reading file. See House Jour
nal, page 1909.
GEORGE II. LAMAR.