The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1910-09-01
AFTFR AYEAR IN WHICH TO THINK
IT OVER"

Loyal temperance men who were disap-
pointed at the veto Of the Hastings Bill,
so-called, and who cherished some re-
sentiment against the Governor and his
advisers when this bill was vetoed, only
needed to be reminded that there are
literally hundveds of crimes and misde-
meanors punishable in the words OF the
Maine statutes by fine or Imprisonment,
and wholly outside of offences against
the liquor law, to realize that the veto
was right and just. The Hastings Bill
was, at first, thought by many if not all,
temperance men to make imprisonment
inevitable only in liquor cases. But, in
addition. it rendered Imprisonment I'M
avoidable whenever sentence was to be
imposed. on conviction of any of the
crimes and misdemeanors, grave or pet
ty, where the penalty is expressed in the
statutes as cline or imprisonment.
Such re-enactment of absolute ''blue
laws" was far from what the temper
ance men of Maine desired. 1t was de-
sired by the Democratic legislators, to
"render the Maine liquor law odious,"
and thus pave the way for license.
True temperance men are now uphold
ing Governor Fernald, and as evidence of
this we submit the following candid
statement from the pen of the Rev C.
E. Owen, of the Anti-Saloon League and
Maine Civic League The condemnation
has become commentator.
THE VETOED HASTINGS BILL.
By C. E. Owen.
1t is probable that ninety-nine out of
every hundred of the voters who urged
the passage of the Hastings bill misun-
derstood the scope and effect of the
measure A simple word of explanation,
therefore, will be welcomed.
Had the Hastings bill become law it
would have repealed the following words
found in the Revised Statutes, Chapter
1876, Sec. |:
"When it is provided that he shall be pun
ished by Imprisonment and fine, or by impris-
onment or fine, or by fine and in addition there
to Imprisonment, he may be sentenced to either
or BOTH
1t did not occur to the writer who
worked earnestly for the passage of the
bill that the pronoun he within it had
reference to anybody except liquor sell
lers. 1t is safe to say that the great ma
jority of the friends of the bill supposed
they were urging the passage of meas
ure which would remove from the court
the power to punish convicted liquor sell
lers by fines alone, and would compel
the court to Jail convicted liquor sellers.
The idea that the Hastings bill had any
application to other laws beside the liq-
uor law and to other criminals beside
liquor sellers did not enter the mind of
the average voter.
DID 1T ENTER YOUR MIND?
Thousands of voters today are not
aware that the Hastings bill as law would
have compelled the judges to apply the
juring his neighbors' shrubs in precisely
the same way as it would have compelled
them to apply the Jail penalty to the
common seller of intoxicated liquors; but
such is the fact. The penalty in both
cases is fine and Imprisonment If the
Hastings bill made Jail newt able in one
case it made it inevitable in the other
under the same conditions.
Numbers of people have said to the
writer that they would not have urged
their senators and Representatives to sup
port the Hastings bill had they under
stood that it applied to other laws beside
the liquor laws. They had no thought of
asking, and no reason for asking, for the
removal of judicial discretion in other
than liquor cases. Had the Hastings bill
become law it would have given much
more than the people wanted. 1t would
have given what the great majority of
the voters did not ask for, were not ex-
pecting, and do not now desire, namely:
mandatory Jail for other than liquor sell
lers.
In view of this fact, l, for one, have
ceased to wonder or to regret that the
Hastings bill was vetoed.