Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1907-03-22
liAlNE LEGISLATURE.
CONTINUED from Page Five.)

force the prohibitory liquor law and
% take over the sheriff of a county
and Mace him at the beck of the Gov
ernor of the State and to cause him
N be Investigated by some fanatic. 1t
seems to me to be going outside of
what was intended to be the primeval
form of our government. | cannot
believe that the people today want
such q measure submitted to them
II is an insult to every sheriff in the
state of Maine. To be sure, in the
new draft, they say, that the govern
ment may appoint a member of the
same party; but that does not matter.
You will have every county of the
State in commotion if you do it; and
l hope that the matter will not pass
| do not know what condition it is in
The PRESIDENT: The question is
upon the acceptance of either report.
Mr.. STAPLES: 1 hope the report
vii not be accepted.
Mr.. EATON of Washington: Mr.
President and gentlemen, to my mind
the question now before US is the most
important one that has come or is
likely to come before this Legislature,
as it is relative to the great question
Of temperance, a subject that is in the
hearts and minds Of all our citizens;
and if we can, at this time, adopt
some measure that will help US out
of our difficulties we shall confer a
great boon upon the State | beg leave
10 differ with the gentleman from
Knox. He has called it a rum meas
oal
When l presented this resolve that /
have presented, | believed it to be a
good one and worthy of place upon
our statute books, not that it is a new
proposition, but because it is an old
proposition. 1t is an old law on our
books, placed there before the Oldest
senator here was born. I introduced
this resolve on the first day of Feb
ruary. / am sorry that it comes up
at this late date. | Immediately went
to my friends, on introducing it, to see
in what way they would look at it;
and, without exception, every man
that | approached in the Senate here
and in the House approved it, In fact
the approval was so general that | was
in doubt myself whether I really had
the true sentiment or not and so | went
still further in the matter and inquired
Of my friends and others outside of
this body. The senator who sits next
TO me, who was here two years ago
told me that he fully approved of this
measure, that he had a resolve similar
to this ready to put into this Senate
The friends of the Sturgis bill urged
him to withdraw it. which he did. ]
also met a friend of mine who was a
member of the last Legislature and
one of the ablest representatives, in
that Legislature; and he told me that
he fully approved of this measure, and
that ne was DESTROYS. two years ago
of having this same measure to e
through, but that the friends of the
Sturgis bill opposed it. and so il
was withdrawn there He felt
that If this had been nut
Through two years ago as could easily
have been done. the great question noH
before us would have been solved.
have other testimonies. gentlemen. Let
tiers have come to me from different
parts Of the State from people I have
never heard of before. approving it. It
had approval in the papers and the only
opposition in the papers that / know OF
cam" from Democratic papers; and they
thought it rather a drastic measure. 81
that the resolve has been changed IL
meet the difficulties that they found in
It. They thought that possibly it might
be used by some Of the Republican party
against Democrats in power-against am
sheriff who might be a Democrat. so tina;
there was put into the bill the clause
that ''any vacancy which is caused by
removal h. nv ba
nointment Of political party to which
the party removed belonged" So that
objection must be done away with.
| also had testimony of approval from
one Of the candidates for Governor al
on! EcXt election ana IF m on. Of tho
!WicnS of CIR SupIt mo court and last
rat 40: least came the report of the jul
dietary committee The only opposition
t. that in this committee was from two
OF The members who arc Democrats, and
l am afraid that in their decision tho
wer" governed by party lines But, ir
addition to this. gentlemen. we nave
strong precedence for yhis 1t Is not an
untried measure but il is being used i,
other states and used TO advantage Thor,
are several states that have a similar
III" 10 ms, but not exactly like it, tho
state Of New York for instance, and three
scat9S in our Western country Michigan
Minnesota and Wisconsin. that have laws
exactly like this except they go farthe.
IMAM this and give the governor powp,
not only to remove shcriffs but to removt
mary other officers. I have here copie;
or those laws of the three different states
put l will not take your time to read
them all. l will take the shortest one sc
mat YOU may get an idea Of it.
in Minnesota Revised laws. 1905
Sec. 9G6S. Removal by governor The
governor may remove from office ans
cierk OF the supreme diStric. court
Judge of probate. court commissioner
sheriff. coroner. auditor, register of deed,
county attorney. county superintendent
VI schools. county commissioner. county
treasurer. or any collector. receiver. nl
custodian CT public moneys. whenever +
appears to him, by competent evidence
mat either has been guilty of malfeas
ance or nonfeasance in the per
lormancn Of his official duties