Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-03-04

any arbitrary act Of this Legislature
taxing from the people of the State tbt
right TO control the public officers whor
tney eject. We are merely SUBMITTING
to.tnet people the question, whether they
VIII give to the governor of the STATE
the right TO remove officers whom they
erect ana who are found rerreant q,
oeNnquent In the discharge of thei,
omclal duties; and it strikes me as rath.
er inconsistent in the Senator from
hhoN III opposing measure which seeks
| 10 SUBMIT TO the people Of the State
| Aor "hom ne has such sincere regard
the question which is before u.s.
Inc senator states that this matter
cannot De determined for two wears.
Out, II ne had read the resolve. he
would see that it proposes to submit
thls question to the people on the Sec
ohd Monday of September following the
| passage of the resolve; consequently
inns question would be voted upon by
the qualified electors Of this State on
the second Monday of September next
Ia date six months distant
| The Constitution of the State pro-
| Vides that the Governor shall cause the
laws to be faithfully executed: but the
constitution gives the Governor no
power or authority in the premises. Tt
| places upon him a duty, but 1t does not
| give him the power l submit that we
either remove from the Constitution the
constitutional duty placed upon the
| Governor or else we should give him
constitutional power to fulfil that duty
The only power which the Governor
now has is the power given by the
Legislature. and 1 submit it is wrone
in principle and unscientifc, contrary
to the principles of political science tc
to fulfil that duty should be constitu-
al duty without constitutional power
If the duty is constitutional, the power
to fulfill that duty should be constitu.
tional and not legislative; and that is
my principal reason for urging the
passage of this resolve
Alr. LOONEY of Cumberland: Mr.
President, In theory we have had fol
tn" last 80 years in the State of Maine
prohibition. In practice we have haG
what might be termed free rum OF
illegal local option. Notification has
been the rule and prohibition has beer
| the exception.
One reason for this-what 'consid-
err disgraceful condition of affairs, has
been that while prohibition is the State
law, there has been no State machin-
cry to enforce it. The enforcement OF
the law has been left to different 10.
caiities. Now, the prohibitory law be-
ing a State law, it should be enforced
all over the State, in those commune
ties which do not believe in the law as
we'll as in those communities which
do believe in the law. Under this law
| the legiSla tive unity is not a town, not
a city, not a county, but the State. anG
therefore. in order to secure uniform
effective, rigid enforcement of the law
| there should be State machinery tt
| enforce it; and for that reason we have
had all over the State, for the last 81
or 4G years, notification. There has not
| been one moment, one week, one month
| Or one year since the prohibitory law
was enacted that it has received thai
uniform. effective enforcement which
the law contemplates, and the reason
| that it has not received that effective
| enforcement of the law which the Con
stitution and the law contemplates is
because, as 1 said before. the enforce
| ment of the law has been left to diff
| ferent localities and has not proceed
ed from central point. In other
words, what we have had-I repeat it
| is not State prohibition but illega
county local option.
| For this reason I consider the Stur-
| gis law a step in the right direction
The Sturgis law is an honest attempt
put forward by an honest Governor
| and endorsed by honest temperance
people, to secure a State enforcement
| 10 T
NV distinguished friend from Knox
that that enforcement has had
its limitations, still l believe that, on
the whole the Sturgis law has been a
great blessing to the State of Maine
Since the Sturgis law has been IN eX-
| istence the number of retail liquor IL
censes paid in Maine has gone down
! from 1900 to 600. l know that. from
| certain quarters, there have been urged
objections to the Sturgis law, but IN
the last analysis, in my judgment
those objections fall to this: That the
Sturgis law as enforced, or the Stursis
deputies acting under the Sturgis law
have enforced the law in communities
where before there was nulli1catiot
| and a disgraceful violation of law
and the question is: Whether we VIII
| reUeal this law at the request anu al
the demand of violators of the law
men who are really outlaws all over
the State. SO, for this reason l am IN
favor of keeping the Sturgis law on
the Statute Book until it is replaced
by something better That something
better in my judgment, is armlns the
Executive with power to enforce the
laws. The Governor is the Chief Exec
utive of the State. In other words. II
is his sworn constitutional duty to Sc
cure an enforcement of the law. AS 1t
is now, the Governor, as far as the en-
forcement of the law is concerned, IS
q mere shadow-a Governor of shreds
and patches" He may be satisfied as
| Governors, in the past have been sat
isfied, that the law has been violated
! in two-thirds of the counties OF the
State. He may be satisfied that an
archy. so far as this law is concerned
is rampant from one end OF the state
to the other, and yet as the law now IS
he being the Chief Executive--the law
enforcing power under the Constitution
of TIL, State, he is powerless to remedy
| the evil. He is powerless to/secure an
| 81 hn