Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1907-02-06

out on the ground of expediency.
though personally he favored it.
| Mr.. Gleason provides in his bill for
presidential electors. This is left out
of the Weeks bill for the old law is left
to apply to all but the candidates who
will be voted on at September cleo
htions. These special elections were left
out to simplify the bill. The principal
point of difference in the two bills is
that the Gleason bill goes a great deal
farther than the Weeks bill. Mr.. Heath
| said in closing:
1T is TO be hoped that this commit
tee will work out some way to return
to the people the power 70 govern
themselves-so something they certainly
have not now.
Mr.. Davies asked the question what
| there was to prevent the circulation
of petitions by persons and submitting
them to the secretary of State and
thus get name on the ballot of an op-
| posite party. Mr.. Heath said that there
was nothing at all to prevent it. Dur
| ing a discussion of the general idea
| Mr.. Heath made this statement:
Il believe that either political PARTY
| of the State is ruled by two per cent.
| of its voters. This is Il question out
side of parties. It's a question of good
government"
Mr.. Gleason said in opening that he
did not appear before the committee
! III behalf of his bill so much as in be
| half of the principle involved ami
| pointed out that the principal differ
cnccs between the two bills presented
| are in the manner of voting and in the
| system Of enrolment This question
| has been observed more closely and
| considered more than any other fca-
| ture Of the primary election law. and
| the tendency has been along enroll
ment lines.
The advocate of House Document
Number g. as this bill is designated.
stated that the two laws presented
are the very highest types that have
been worked out thus far, and cited
| the laws of the several states which
have already adopted the new system.
He defined the object of the law as
| follows 1.-THE object of the direct
primary is not to combine the direct
primary system with the convention
system, but to get rid of the cOnven-
ton system all together. There is no
good to it."
Mir. Gleason then took up his bill
section by section. pointing out the
differences between the two bills and
also comparing it with the bills of
other states.
The bill was presented for the pur-
pose of bringing before the commit
tee the essential features of the ida,
not any particular type of law. MI
Montgomery of the committee asked,
What experiences have you had that
have led you to believe that this is nee
essary?" Il don't think that | would
care to relate my experiences. They
occurred principally in the county OF
Oxford, if that answers your question.
Though did attend a caucus in Lew
iston where things didn't come out as
il ought to. by any means" said Mr..
Gleason in reply"
The bill provides for no declaration
of principle by party, unless the State
committee may wish to get together
and draft one. 1t is not intended to
get a declaration Of platform of parties
but declaration of what the people
want to have enacted into law.
The speaker was asked by W. /.
Haines. what there would be to keep
IN The interest of the people IN poHtitS-
The reply was that the interest was
fostercd by the personal regard LOT TIC
several candidates.
Mr.. Gleason pointed out that one
good feature was that there were
annie provisions for independent cam
di1ates who wished to run for office.
The committee on judiciary was 10
have had a lively time with the Dill
Granting to women the right to vote
Tuesday afternoon. but the elements
sadly interferred with the program
manned out by the ladies and but le"
braycd the storm to present their pl-
ennial arguments
Mrs. Fannie Fernald of Old Orchard,
Mrs. George F. French of Portland
Representative Titcomb and Hon. H. Z.
Revnolds of South Portland appeared
in favor of the bill. Representative III
comb read a letter written by Grace
Whittier Rollins Of Pennington FailS.
ulrinr upon the committee the propri-
CIV OF considering the bill favOrably
and reporting ought to pass to the
House and Senate.
There were no remOnStrantS and the
proposition was tabled for the cXccu-
tive session.
The committee on taxation held thu
center of the stage Tuesday afternoon
when it held the hearing in the Senat',