The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1907-03-21
ReSubmisSiOn Defeated.
The HOUSE VOTES 70 NO TO os YES.


on the question by moving that the
minority report of the committee on
temperance be substituted for the ma
jority report in concurrence with the
Senate. The gentleman from Augusta
declared that prohibition is wrong in
theory and failure in practice. He
quoted the criticisms of Bishop Potter
respecting prohibition. Mr.. Newbert's
entire speech was bitter arraignment
of the principles of prohibition rather
than in advocacy of resubmitting the
fifth amendment of the Constitution.
Should the question of resubmiSsiOn be
carried those interested in favor of a
license system will have an eloquent
ally in the Rev. Mr.. Newbert. He COM
pared the per cent of arrests for drunk
enness in Maine cities per 1000 of
population, showing from 8 per cent in
Waterville and Lewiston, to II per
cent in Bangor. Mr. Newbert pro-
nounced the prohibitory policy as not
being temperance measure. The man
who claims that change from pro-
hibition to something else means sa-
looms is either a fool or knave, de-
clared Mr. Newbert, and he stated that
he knew they are not fools.
Mr.. Dow Of Brooks: Mr.. Speaker, l
have been much interested in the re-
marks of the gentleman from Au-
gusta, hut | cannot agree with what he
says in the last part of the address. |
am one Of those who are opposed to
resubmission and | am not ashamed of
it. | am not prepared to reply to him
in way that l should like, but as a
temperance man and one who believes
in the prohibitory laws of the State of
Maine, who has faith in the honesty of
the people of the State of Maine and
their opinions on this subject, l wish
to stand here and protest against re-
submission of this amendment to the
people at this time.
We believe that the question OF re-
submission is one very vitality import
ant TO the great and varied interests OF
our State. 1t introduces an element of
uncertainty into the consideration of a
question that was supposed to have
been settled for all time. The distinct
understanding of the people when pro-
hibition was made part of the consti-
tutional law of the State was that the
matter had been taken out of politics
forever. If l remember rightly the law
was adopted by over fifty thousand ma
jority. 1t was practically the unan-
imous sentiment of the State that the
correct thing had been done. Every
body seemed satisfied. The courts
acquiesced in the opinion that the law
was constitutionally correct and Just,
and uudisputed confidence seemed es-
tabliShed But now after the lapse of
score of years we find it asserted that
some of the people are discontinued
with the fact that they did not have a
III
of them were not born early enough to
get into the Prohibition band wagon,
and they demand the right, it is said, to
have the whole thing done over again,
SO that they may give the matter their
personal endorsement. In addition to
the personal qualification it would give
by giving it the honor of their well-con-
sidered approval. Why do they select
this one phase of our constitutional law
and omit all the rest. We became
State over eighty years ago and not a
man is living who voted on the Consti-
tuition when it was originally presented
to the people Why not have the whole
Constitution resubmitted to the people
that they may vote on it to make sure
1t is all right. Our reSubmlSsion
friends, who wish to undo the work OF
years of honest endeavor, for The sim
pie reason, as they say, that they wish
to have chance to vote on it, do not,
it seems to me, appreciate the differ
ence between simple proposition for
their consideration and a well establish |
ed constitutional law. 1t is a we'll eS-
tablished principle which has come |
down to us from the nations of antiqui- |
ty that constitutional law should not |
be disturbed for light and trivial reas-
OBS. 1t should be most carefully con-
sidered before enactment, and when |
once it has become a part of the funda- |
mental law of the State or nation it |
should be difficult but not impossible, to |
repeal it. The fact, as it seems to me, |
that this supposed demand of the PEG
pie that they should have an opportuu-
ity to endorse the prohibitory law by |
their votes is an entirely fictitious pro-
position. We must throw discredit on
the law by voting to resubmit. 1t is al
most entirely the result of supposed |
political exigency. Our Democratic
friends wanted an issue to make votes |
with, and they very sagaciously select
ed this as one that would win them at
least temporary strength. And it is |
credit to their ability that they handled
it skilfully during the campaign and |
won votes on it. Ii you want to attract |
attention all you have got to do is to
get out and boiler. 1t makes no differ
ence whether you have a subject of
merit or not, if you only holler loud
enough and long enough somebody will
come your way. Aud our friends in
their zeal for resubmission hollered for
all they were worth. In fact, they hol-
lowed so hard that some of the people
began to sit up and take notice and to
feel that they had been terribly impos-
ed upon by not having chance to en-
lorse the constitution by their personal
vote. 1t was practically the same thing
that happened in New York when the
aboring men who were earning more
wages than they ever earned before,
Who were having more home comforts
Than they ever had before, were delud-
ed by the cry of the politicians who
said you have no right to be contented
While any other men are better fed and
nave better homes than yourselves.
They listened to the noise but did not
consider the reason. And here in
Maine as the election returns came in
after the battle had ceased and the
smoke cleared away, we find some of
the Republican politicians aghast at
some of the political changes, and they
we're all ascribed to the resubmission
Try and began to boiler for all they
we're worth that the people demanded