Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1907-11-19
A Communication.
Waterville, Maine. Nov. -. 1907.
Editors kpunphec TOurnal:-

least. to raise objection to the very
| complimentary and approving remarks
| of the Journal concerning the sound
| ness of my views upon the referendum
question:: but at the risk Of upsetting
all compliments it seems necessary to
have the evident misunderstanding
publicly corrected.
In the first place 1t has never been
my view that test vote Of the people
upon Their necessarily agitated liquor
question. resulting either favorably or
unfavOrably to the present policy
would be of any permanent value. Ii
the test vote resulted favOrably for
prohibition the opponents would re-
gard that test vote as an established
precedent for future and frequent test
votes and agitation would be promptly
renewed. If it resulted unfavOrably to
the present policy the temperance
people would be equally prompt to
agitate for a return to the prohibitory
policy as they are now doing in
Vermont and New Hampshire.
The argument that such Il test vote
covering the whole state would
materially affect the action of county
officers or local courts or even the
Supreme Judicial Court i'm their en-
fcrcement policy has never appealed
to me as sound. So far as those
officers and courts are made up of that
type of public servants who take
orders from local street sentiment
rather than the revised statutes the
test vote covering the whole state
would have no appreciable influence.
N1,a irtr nlI
sentiment in each city and town and
county would still be the determining
factor in the enforcement acts of this
class of officials. To the extent that
we are under this type of officials the
state test vote would be of no value.
and a higher type of officials has no
need of pressure by test vote.
In the second place. no one doubts
that there are thousands of voters who
are eager for Resubmission to break
down and, if possible. utterly over
throw the Prohibitory policy of Maine.
These voters are necessarily demand
ing test vote upon this subject
claiming that a majority of the voters
of the state are not in accord with the
present prohibitory policy. They
taunt the defenders of the present
policy with unwillingness to trust the
people. and with craven fear of the
result in case the test should be made
For the ostensible purpose of testing
the people they advocate Resubms-
sion; but. no one who has carefully
thought out the real meaning of what
is popularity called Resubmission can
honestly claim that it was ever in
l.I l.
popular test vote. and no one can
doubt that it is absolutely impractical
BILE for securing a fair test of the will
of the people. ResubmiSsion consists
of two distinct acts, first an act of the
Legislature and second an act of the
people. 1t is expected and intended
that the act of the people will be in
fuenced by the act of the Legislature
which precedeS it. and be d popular
ratification of that act. Resubmission
is essentially an act of amending the
constitution not a method except in
cidentally. of testing the will Of the
people. ReSubmissiOn takes its first
step as an act of the Legislature.
"annuIling and abrogating" by a two
thirds vote. the Prohbitory clause of
the Constitution. 1t thus establishes.
at the start. an argument of great
force. the strong Legislative approval
of the abandonment of the Prohibitory
policy. There is nothing about this to
object to. provided the people under
stand it. and our law makers do not.
give us Resubmssion under the false
notion or pretext that Resubmission
affords an opportunity to secure Il fair
test of the will of the voters. Result
mission was not devised for securing
popular test votes. and it's peculiar
character prccludes the possibility of
securing a fair test vote by its use
In the third place. an able jurst
whose ability and Judgment even the
Watervilc Sentinel has frequently
praised. declared that the popular
initiative and referendum could be in
voked by twelve thousand petitioners
to determine the will Of the people
upon the vital question Of retaining or
doing away with the Prohibitor.-
policy. 1t is the purpose of the
initiative and referendum t" give the
people what they have not had before,
namely. an opportunity to settle such
Questions Of policy by test vote unin
iluenced by previous Legislative ap-
prevail or condemnation.
The initiative and referendum, soon
to be voted on by the people. after
having had the nearly unanimous APP
prevail of the last Legislature. will I'M
doubtedly receive strong ratification
by popular vote. When it has become
part of the Constitution it will afford
the opponents of Prohibition the OPP
portunity to bring fair. popular test
vote upon the question. Twelve
thousand petitioners can do it. Pro-
viding for them the opportunity has
my approval. My vote shall help to
secure that opportunity. but if | am
asked whether or not | will be one Of
the twelve thousand petitioners t.
initiate an attack upon the policy OF
State Prohibition. which the liquor
dealers of the whole country detest
and fear. above all other policies, /
answer-"Never, until l am prepared
to honestly line. up with the men who
are seeking to overthrow our prohibit
tory policy" They have the oppor-
tunity It is enough: let them use it.
Very respectfully,
c. E. OWEN.