Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1910-09-10
THE HASTINGS BILL.
Mr.. Owen Objects to Editorial
Democratic Paper.

The following open letter speaks for
itself and is published by request of
Mr.. Owen:
To the Waterville Morning Sentinel:
KINDLY give me space in YOUR next
issue for brief statement regarding
your editorial of this morning, Sept.
Sth. in which you use my name.
You assert that my signed statement
regarding the veto of the Hastings Bill
is "a most puerile defense of q most
puerila apology and YOU emphasize
your assertion by charges which if be-
lieved would stab my reputation to the
heart. You say Never in all the his
| tory of prohibition hypocrisy cant and
nullifica ton has there been such rep
etition OF the kiss of Judas as is eXem-
plifed by Mr.. owen In his defense of
the veto of the Hastings BILL and you
close Your editorial with an insinuation
that l have received the betrayer's
thirty pieces of silver for my services.
Your motive in thus assaulting my
reputation l will not discuss. 1t is
transparent. ! ask. in simple fairness;
that you publish in full my signed
statement in order that your readers
may Judge for themselves as TO its
pufril 1 enclose copy.
Allow me to correct the impression
your editorial leaves upon the readers
mind that just now, al this campaign
season, my changed views of the Hast
ingS Bill were first given to the public.
These views We're very fully set forth
in the Maine edition of the American
Issue. of which l was at that time ed
itor. in the May number of 1909. The
Sentinel was regularly receiving an
exchange copy.
Let me correct also the Sentinel 5
error in stating that all the provisions
which the Hastings bill would have re-
pealcd were ''sneaked into" the statute.
The Hastings bill would have repealed
three Instinct provisions each OF hich
was incorporated into the statute at
different times. The first provision ap-
pears in the Revised statutes of 1S41
and has never been repealed. 1t pro-
Vides that whatever the penalty given
by the statute for any crime is impriS-
onmert and fine the presiding Judge
may use his discretion in giving either
Imprisonment or fine or both.
TIE second provision appears in the
Revised Statutes of 1857 and provides
that when the penalty prescribed by
n: statute for any crime is impriSon-
nent or fine the presiding Judge may
use his discretion in giving both i'm
prisOnment and fine if in his judgment
the guilt of the criminal warrants it.
The third provision which the Hast
in5s bill would have repealed found it's
Mt tho eta trto ff
1t provides that when the penalty
given by the statute is fine AND IN
ADDITION THERETO imprisonment
the presiding Judge may sentence to
either or both. This third provision
only was "sneaked' into the statute
and in the article in the American Is
sue above referred to the history of the
introduction and passage of this pro-
vision through the legislature of 1893
was fully given. This third provision
and this only is the ECKER and should
nave been repealed. The mistake OF
the Hastings hill was in attempting
to repeal the first and second provis-
ions which were not ''Sneaked in" as
the Sentinel asserts. but came in legiti-
mately and before our prOhibitory laws
We're fully enacted.
The repeal of the third provision
would have affected the penalties of
convicted liquor sellers only, and, with
few minor changes in the prohibitory
statute, woud have accomplished all
the people wanted and no more viz:
mandatory Jail for liquor sellers.
When Herod wished to kill Jesus.
then few months old. he took this
method: He slew all the children of
the country of two years old and I'M
der. He ruthlessly destroyed thous-
ands TO accomplish the death of one.
The Hastings bill in seeking to get Jail
for the liquor seller adopted Herod S
plan,
Very respectfully,
c. f. OWEN
Below is given the statement referred
to;