The Somerset reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1868-1909, 1906-08-16
Democratic misconceptions


claim nat b. opp0siug law designed
10 effect enforcement Of a constitutional
measure If great Importance 10 Maine,
the Democratic party is 'iedeemIbg"
the state. 4 accuses the Republican
party 81 nailifyiug the law and u the
same breath snarls because the party
has done its best 10 enforce the law
Cnucs who attack administrations have
an easy job Of 1t. 1t is only necessary
TO loaf on the fence and "sassn the chap
Who is dong all the work
Whatever the Sturgis measure, as an
attempt to honestly enforce a law may
or may not be, the fact remains that the
Democratic party has not desired or
even suggested any other plan by which
the prohibltory law could be enforced,
aud the State kept honest 70 use 10
present slogan On the contrary the
Democratic party through sheriff PEN
nell of Cumberland county declared
openly that notification Of the prohibi-
tory law would be its policy. That war
before the ~turgis act was thought Of
The Democrats called that "redeemlngn
Cumberland county To follow such a
declared policy by calling the Repub!i
can party party of notification is de-
hcious humor.
All good citizens are in favor Of the
enforcement of law You can fDd no
self respecting man who will take the
ground that the laws should not be en-
forced while they are laws. BY admit
ting that the prohibltory law wasn't eu-
forced in the state Of Maine as well as
ii could be,-as well az experience has
shown that it has been since the Sturgis
law Was passed is not the proper way to
do it-that that isn't good way TO Sc
cure the enforcement which they admit
should be secured in some way.
1t Ii up to them 10 propose some
method to secure this enforcement
The oturgis bill was the only method
which was suggested to the Legislature
Many members were opposed to that
bill, still claiming that they desired en-
foIcement. If they could suggest DC
better way than this, what reason have
they to complain that this was adopted?
1t certainly was necessary that SOME
means should be devised to secure .eae
better enforcement of the law, 80 long
as 1t remained upon the statute book.
Ii WAS not question of the comparative
merits of prohibition or license, but il
was a question of enforcing the law of
our state.
The Democrats now claim that the
law is not enforced impartially, that ia,
In some parts of the State there is more
violation of the prohibitory law than in
others. This criticism is easy to make,
and does not come from friends of the
law. The conditions in different parts
OF the state are different. 1t is easy to
criticse the enforcement of the law by
saying that ii Is not as well enforced 10
one county as in another, or to criticise
the commission because they have dep
uties at work in one county and not in
another. Pursuing this specous argu-
ment, if it should be found necessary 10
put depties into every county, then
those same critics could commence by
towns, following the same line aud crit
lcising the commission again because
| deputies were in one town and not ia
another. But however this may be, one
thing Is certain, and that is that prog
| ress has been made In the enforcement
of the law, as this very form of criticism
admits; for as 1t complains of laxity in
one place, 1t compares it with enforce
ment existing in other places
The work undertaken by the Sturgis
commission was great one, and it must
necessarily proceed cautiously. step by
step, and the whole trend of the Demo
crazy is and admits, that SO far as it has
gone, it has done well. Their cry Is
that it has not rushed along at headlong
speed. Then, with their usual fairness,
after having complained that the com
mission has not proceeded fast enough
hasn't put deputies in many of our
counties, they turn around and persist
in crticzing the governor and council
for having spent 30 much money. hey
say there was an appropriation of $500
and that this has been largely over
drawn. In doing this they carry out the
same system of telling half the truth
which has perVaded all their other
criticisms.
The Sturgis act, 30 called, in section
l, provided for the appointment of three
mem bers, the hiring of clerk the pay
ing of the expenses OF the commissioners
and incidental expenses. The following
sections provided for the appointment
of deputy com missioners, who we're TO
be officers with the powers of deputy
sherltfs, and who were to actively en-
gage In the enforcement of the law,
section provided for the commission
and the expense was left, as is usual in
such cases, to be provided for in the
general appropriation bill; and to cover
these expenses the sum of $500 Was
appropriated. The expenses of the
commission proper, for its salaries,
clerks, incidental and travelling expenses
has been kept we'll within this appropri
alton.
The trainers of this law took the stu
alton seriously and were earnest in their
efforts to secure the enforcement Of the
law. They did not take kindly 10 Dem
ocratic methods, which have often been
exhibited, of acquiesclng in law and re-
fusing the means To put it in force.
This has always been a Democratic
dodge.
When President Roosevelt was de-
voting his tremendt us energy 10 the
development of the civil service reform.
AS one of the commissioners charged
with this work, enemies of the law 10
Congress. not daring 10 attack the Jaw
itself, sought 10 cripple the commission
by lack of sufficient appropriation TO
carry on the work The friends of en-
forcement in the legislature, who voted
for this Sturgls sIIl, were in earnest.
They dad not leave the pay Of the dep
uty commissioners to be limited by any
general appropriations but provided IN
section 5 of the act that three commits
slouers should be entitled to a per diem
and expenses upon bills to be presented
10 the commission, approved by Il, aud
tied and paid by the governor and