Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1908-09-08
Not q Party Matter.

In the consideration of state issues in
the present campaign, the Democrats
are devoting the largest amount of their
time and space to the question of pro.
hibition and license under the guise of
submission-which they have per-
feet right to do, If they care to put so
much Of their energy into an issue SO
hopeless. Occasionally some of them
for the charge can not be brought
against them all-turn aside for a season
Of mud-slinging and personal attack,
which reacts iDjuriously to their cause.
Aside from these two features of their
campaign, perhaps their principal effort
is devoted to showing the enormous
increase" In state expenditures In the
last decade or two.
Now it can not be denied that state
expenditures have largely increased
during the last few years. The figures
show it. That does not necessarily
show that there is anything wrong
Everybody is spending more money.
The producing power of the individual
has been increasing, and people continue
to live pretty we'll up 10 their incomes.
Prices have been going up, too, and the
same service costs the state, as it does
the individual, more in dollars than 1t
did.
The real question is, has the state
been getting "value received" for its in
creasing expenditures. The increase is
very largely for schools, colleges and
educational institutions of one kind and
another, better roads, hospitals, and other
charities which relieve the distresses of
the poorer people, and help to save life
or make it better worth the living.
Then there Is included in the expendi-
lures of the last three years an item of
$500, 900 paid on the state debt, which
will be reduced at the close of Governor
Cobb's administration to little matter
of 100000.
We are providing more educational
facilities for the future men and women
of our state. We are building good
roads. We are taking care of the sick
and the distressed. We are paying our
debts. And apparently We are getting
what we pay for.
are wise or not, who is responsible for
them? For campaign purposes the
Democrats say the Republicans are
responsible. 1t is true that the governor
has been Republican, and that ma
jority of the legislature, which makes
the expenditures, has been Republican.
Nevertheless cheese expenditures, be they
good or bad, are not matter for which
the sole responsibility rests upon the
Republicans.
For a number of terms there has been
q respectable minority of Democrats in
the legislature. In the legislature of
1907, which made state expenditures
larger than ever before, there were in
the senate "a Republicans and Dem
Gratis, and in the house So Republicans
and SO Democrats. Do you not think it
was in the power of those 10 Democrats
out of a total of 1872 members of both
houses to check some of these expendi-
lures If they saw Fl? Or If not that,
could they not at least have made a
united and public protest If they had
desiredP Search the record, and tell us
what the Democratic minority in the
house, constituting over 40 per cent of
it's membership, did toward heading off
these great expenditures.
As matter of fact, there Is no par
tisanship in the state appropriations
while the legislature is in session. 1t Is
only when the exigencies of the cam
paign require it that they become solely
the work of the Republicans. And un-
til the minority of Democrats in the
Legislature 60 on record as opposing the
Increased appropriations-be they good
or bad-they should be estopped from
charging the Republicans with the sole
responsibility for them.