Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1909-02-17
gorrfs ponnfnrr.
The Legislature.
To the Editor of The American,

For the first time in years the two
parties at the State capital have resolved
themselves into caucuses to determine the
policies of each in matters of legislation
Upon two matters, IL l understand it, have
the members of the republican party
unanimously determined-the Siufgis
law and railroad rebates. There is now nc
issue between the two parties or the latter
| question. III | remember correctly, the
Sturgis law was neither endorsed nor con-
demned in the late platform of the party
nor in its previous State platform. The
republicans have claimed it as their child
| by birth, though large part OF the party
has disowned it, and now il appears that q
majority of the party are anxious to bury
| it.
| -Four years ago, when the Sturgis bill
was before the House, it was endorsed and
the House. They could see no legal flaw
in it then. Mr.. Oaks, considered by
many the ablest lawyer in the House,
! opened the discussion for the bill. He
| had previously introduced bill which
subsequently passed the legislature i'm
! posing heavy penalties on county attor-
neys for not enforcing the prohibitory
law. In the progress of his discussion OF
the Sturgis bill he was asked by another
attorney, who was opposed to the bill, if
| he thought the Oaks law was a good law,
and he said he did. But who has ever
heard of it since? l will venture to say
that nine-tenths of the people don't know
that such la " is or ever wss in existence.
OF course Gov. Cobb has known all
about the law, and knew all about it when
in q certain county the county attorney
failed or refused to enforce the pfohibi.
tory law. Instead OF applying the Oaks
law, the governor appointed another
county attorney under authority Of the
Sturgis law. The court has decided that
clause OF the Sturgis law, ct least, is il
legal, and that the Official authority of
that appointed attorney is void.
| Now, what is the use to add law to law
and give the governor further authority
over delinquent officerss II he can't en-
force the law, as it Is, his constitutional
duty to enforce the law already on the
statutes intended to punish derelict ofic-
ials, what sense, Whist reason, what hope
is there in multiplying law as terror to
evii-doerss
We don't need any more scarecrows.
We need a little more backbone and
fighting blood behind the bulwark OF
law. When an officer under solemn
oath - an anostle of law-who has ms o
it life study and ought to love and al
most reverence it, fails in his duty toward
the enforcement OF law, you have the
worst example OF nullifcation conceivable.
The citizen who, under loose and in
ehective administration, pursues his IL
legal commerce in alcoholic stimulants as
an occupation-and takes his chances,
qualified and in solemn duty bound to
punish Offenders. but instead barters sway
the! states protection against crime for
filthy lucre or political influence. the pro-
| lection OF innocent families, the safety OF
society, the government OF the state in bis
hands, and he in mufiied sympathy with
the criminal classes -compared with such
~ OAA1NSef eAAS S0Ac~AA ASSRSA AASSo w WIG
dignity of tolerated nuisance.
The Oaks law says, take hold Of that Of
fetal nuisance and ring him up to the tune
of 81 900, or Imprisonment or less. Q, says
the man at the helm that's pretty hard isn't
it? He is my political brother. That won't
do! Here is another law that makes it easy
the famous Sturgis law. 1.-THE county
attorney WON'T enforce the law why we can
just appoint another officer and send him
| down there, and if he doesn't do his duty
We can appoint another and send him
down there, and so on, until we find one
who has the grit to enforce it, even il
he hasn't the sense to enforce it right
The Sturgis law. intended as a blow
against notification, furnishes a way OF
escape for the most barefaced and I'M
justifable class of nullifiers in the State.
Now, what is the use for the repubii-