Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1906-03-14
THE REFERENDUM.
LETTERS OF SENATORS CLARK
AND POTTER.
CLARK, WHO INTRODUCED
THE RESOLVE IN LAST LEGIsLA-
TURE, REPLIES TIC SENATOR
POTTER, WHO OPPOSED IT.

Some months since, in compliance with
/ its request, Hon. Barrett Potter wrote
letter to the press agent of the Maine
Referendum league giving his reasons for
voting against the initiative and refer
endum when that measure was before the
last legislature. Senator E. S. Clark
was asked to reply to Mr. Potter and both
letters are printed below.
SENATOR PoTTER's' LETTER.
| Roland T. Patfen, Press Agent Maine
Referendum League, Skoarhegan. Maine.
| | have yours of the 22nd instant, in
! quiring why opposed in the last legisla-
! ture, Senate document No. "a, which was
the referendum resolve presented by
Senator Clark, of Hancock. However un-
important this information may be, you
have right to it, if you want it, and 1
am very willing to furnish it.
/ To begin with, the resolve you refer to
proposed several very far-reac hing amend
ments to our State constitution. If ia
vored by the legislature and the people,
it would have deprived the governor to
some extent of his present veto power,
and would to very considerable extent
have limited the power of the legislature.
1t is not too much to say that it involved
! fundamental changes in our scheme of
government.
1t was argued in favor of this resolve,
that good many very good citizens
wanted to vote on it, and that it was the
duty of the legislature to give them a
chance. l do not believe in that theory
of Legislative duty. A member of the
| legislature may be bound by pledge or
platform to vote for or against a particu-
lar measure, but unless so bound, it is his
duty, when it is proposed to amend the
constitution, to express his own judgment
of the wisdom of the change, not because
he is wiser than the people who elected
him, but the constitution itself imposes
that duty upon him.
| whenever two-thirds of both houses
deem it necessary" is the language of the
fundamental law, in respect to proposed
changes in it. The federal constitution,
and l suppose about all the state con-
situations, contain that provision. And
/ the purpose of it is very clear, and very
wise in my judgment. 1t is that changes in
the constitution shall be slow and, to that
end, that no change shall be made unless
! decreed by the people and the legislature,
acting independently of each other, and
neither voting for it merely because the
/ other wants it, or thinks it wants it.
| The theory is that it is better for even
desirable changes to come slowly, than
! for undesirable ones to come hastily. And
so the people themselves have provided
| that the legislature may properly stand
! between them and sudden changes in the
constitution. And, on the other hand,
our form of government is such that when
the people deliberately make up their
minds to change it, the change is bound
to come, and, of course, ought to come.
If one legislature refuses to give ex
preston to the popular will, another will
be elected that will. But it is the de-
| liberate, final will of the people that
governs, and not the first wave Of popular
opinion.
| Now, applying all this to the proposed
change that seems to your league so de-
sirable, and which may some time turn
out to be, it is fact that it upsets the
rule of more than hundred years, that
the rule. that it is proposed to substitute
for the old one is elaborate and more or
less complicated, and that very few people
in the legislature or out of it have fully
digested it. 1t may be a good idea, and
! it may be bad one.
After it is adopted, it would be hard to
change it. The burden is very strongly
on the friends of the plan to demonstrate
its wisdom. 1t was clear to good many
members of the last Legislature, whose
judgment is as good as mine, that the
change would be wise. 1t was not clear
to me, and for that negative reason alone,
l consider that I was justified in voting
against the resolve. In case of doubt, my
rule would be to vote against any pro-
posed measure of legislation, especially if
the change would affect the constitution.
You will please understand that would
not ignore the fact, if it were a fact, as it
certainly is in respect to the referendum
matter, that honest and able men all over
the State favor the change proposed, but 1
wouldn't be governed necessarily by that
fact, even if thought those men were in
majority, as do not believe they are as
to the Clark resolve.
But / have a positive reason, in addition
to the negative one l have stated, for
opposing the referendum and initiative as
applied to general legislation. Although
we have known no other system than the
one we have, and the result of a change is
largely speculative, believe we are doing
better as we are than we would be under
the change proposed.
The average legislature is composed of
representatives of all parties and sections
and occupations, and in character and
capacity is fairly representative of the
people as whole. Divided into COM
mittees, and appropriately divided, as
rule, they hear witnesses and arguments,
compare views in execut;ye session and