Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1906-03-14
SENATOR CLARK's REPLY.
BAR HARBoR, Me-, Feb. ID, 100

! BAR HARBoR, Me-, Feb. IA, 1906.
Hon. Barrett Potter, Bruns1oick, Maine.
Dear Sir:-The Referendum league OF
Maine has sent me your letter addressed
to Roland T. Patten, of Skowhegan, Maine,
press representative of the league, giving,
in answer to request on it's part, your
reasons for opposing the resolve providing
! for the initiative and referendum pre-
sented by me in the last legislature, and
have asked me to reply to the same.
| Any school boy who has heard his father
or uncle make motion in town meeting,
listened to the subsequent discussion
| thereon, watched the ballot, and heard
the result announced, has seen and will be
able to tell all the essential features of
! the initiative and referendum.
| The revised statutes of Maine, chapter 4,
| section 4, provides: "When ten or more
voters in writing request the selectmen to
insert a particular thing in warrant,
they shall insert it in the next warrant
issued, or shall call special meeting for
the consideration thereof"
| That is the initiative. That matter is
put into the warrant, warrant posted as
next town meeting. That is the referen-
DUN. So this is not an innovation in ouI
| State but is as old as the historical town
meeting of New England.
The only difference between the initia-
tive and referendum as used in our town
meeting and heretofore referred to-
and the one under discussion, namely
Senate document No. "a, introduced into
the last Maine legislature, is that one
was addressed to the legislature pertain
ing to public legislation and the other
applied to towns only.
| The initiative and referendum does not
become law by being passed by the leg
islature but simply submits the right to
change the constitution or to allow the
people to vote whether they cared tc
change the constitution so as to adopt the
| initiative and referendum. If change
in our constitution, which is to make the
will of the majority more clearly, focIbly
and directly expressed, may be considered
ssfar reaching, / have no defense tC
don't believe that the voters would find ii
necessary to participate in more than two
out of every one hundred enactments, and
the experiences in Switzerland, Greg n
South Dakota and Utah with the practical
operations of the referendum are author
| ity for this statement. In any case, how
ever, were referendum used much or little,
it would be the registration of the will
of the majority, and under such
circumstances the charge that the pro-
posed change is star reaching" seems to
fall of it's own volition.
Your letter quotes the constitution with
regard to the submission of amendments
to the people and puts an Interpretation
upon the language "Whenever two-thirds
of both houses deem it necessary. 1t
must be admitted that this sentence from
our fundamental law admits of various
constructions, and one of them may be one
that you feel it necessary to give to it.
| We assume, however, that it was ex-
pected, that the demand of reasonable
number of voters would be accepted by
the legislature as evidence that the sub
mission of constitutional changes was
necessary; and as sixteen thousand people
made representation to the legislature that
they desired the referendum submitted to
them and there were absolutely nc
circumstances; and when it passed the
House 66 to IS in its favor and a tie in the
Senate, since adopted by the State grange
and previously by the State Federation Of
Labor, ve feel at liberty to say that the
senators and representatives of the sew
enty-second legislature would have
violated no duty had they deemed the
submission of the resolves embodied in
the Clark resolution necessary within the
meaning of the constitution.
| If this view of the case is not plausible
and the petition of large numbers oil
voters is not to be admitted as evidence in
such matters, we do not see why eleven or
more senators could not prevent action
upon any constitutional change, even
though demanded with unanimity by the