Ellsworth American., 1911-02-22
FOR RESUKM ISSION.
SPEECH OF REPRESENTATIVE
JOHN A. PETERS.
THINKS THE PRESENT LAW SHOULD
HAVE NO PLACE IN THE cONsrI.
TUITION.

THiNKs THE PRESENT LAW SHOULD
HAVE NO PLACE IN THE cONsTI.
/ TUITION.
have great hesitation IN entering upon
path which has been trodden so often by
so many men so much abler than l.
should not have courage to enter upon the
discussion at all, were it not for the fact
that represent, and purport to represent.
| only myself as a citizen and as q member
OF the legislature, and disclaim any de-
sire to speak for any political party, any
Organization, or any locality, but only as
ar individual, approaching the subject
from an individual standpoint, untram-
meled by any consideration save the good
OF the State.
| 1t strikes ne tnat the usual vein OF the
discussion OF this matter has travelled along
/ lines which arc apt to lead one slightly
away from the real issue. have observed
that in discussing this matter Of resubmis-
sion, remarks immediately fall into lines
! of demarkation between prohibition on the
one hand and local option aud license law
| on the other.
Now, there can be no question, there is
no room for dispute, as to the proposition
that the abuse Of liquor is at the founda-
tion of pauperism, insanity and crime, to q
great extent. Citizens who appreciate the
relative values OF things do not differ on
that proposition. On the other matter of
the relative merits or desira bilty of prohi-
bition on the one side and license law on
the other, We never can all agree. So long
as there are different localities in the State,
different kinds OF citizens, different inter-
ests, it will be impossi Die for all people to
agree upon these questions. 1t might just
as well be recognized.
Now maintain that before we come to
any discussion of the relative merits of pro-
hibition and license, we must decide some
vital preliminary questions OF constitu-
tional nature before we can act intelligent
ly upon this subject. Isuppose the lawyer
naturally and instlnctively likes to get his
feet placed on the constitution. He feels
safer. What does it say? Under what are
we acting? What is the question, anyhow?
How do we get at it?
The constitution, says in article 10, sec
tion 2: 1.-The legislature, whenever two
thirds of both Houses deem it necessary,
may propose amendments to the constitu-
tiol." That is what we can do il we deem it
necessary. Well, now, what are the rights
OF the people How do they stand towards
this matter7 Is there anything here which
gives them any interest in the settlement
of this question?
The first article OF the constitution is the
very bedrock, the foundation-stone ofthe
whole edifice. In that is specified the nat
ural and primary rights OF citizens. Upon
that structure the whole edifice stands; and
If that foundation is ever shaken the whole
house falls. Now in the very second Sec
tion OF article l, it is provided, and always
has been, that all power is inherent in the
people, all free governments are founded
in their authority and instituted for their
benefit. They have, therefore, an tnalien-
able and indefeasible right to institute
government and to alter, reform or totally
change the same when their safety and
happiness require it.
1t seems, then, that we cannot get away
from the fundamental proposition that the
people are given at the start, have always
had and have now, an inalienable and in
defeasible right to alter, reform or change
this form OF government if they deem it
necessary, if they deem that their safety
and happiness require it.
Now, then, what is the proper attitude
of the legislature concerning any proposed
change Of this kind maintain and al
ways have that no change in the constitu-
tion either by taking anything away or by
adding anything to it, should ever be made
unless preceded by long-continued agita-
tion, followed by demand from the citi-
zenship, clear and unmistakable. Now
we certainly have had agitation. This
thing has been agitated publicly for
many years; it has been presented here in
the form of question similar to this,
has been discussed here and elsewhere for
years. 1t has come up here time and time
again. The agitation certainly has been
| sufficient.
| Now is there demand; is the demand
| clear, is it unmistakable? OF course that
is the place where we may divide. That is
toe question of fact, as l look at it,
| whether or not the demand is clear and
| imperative, because if it is, acting under
their constitutional rights, the people
have right to vote upon this question,
and we cannot properly, as legislators,
stand between them Nand their rights il
we believe that our demand is cleas; il
we believe that it is not, it is our duty
think, in my attitude towards this
matter, to vote the other way.
| WHERE DO THE PEOPLE STAND?
| Now of course there are several ways oi
finding out how the people stand, upon
this question of their demand | mean
There is one way, in analyzing the votes
which they give for elections, and have
given. 1t has been said, when the last
election was pointed to as criterion o.
la .f 49, Ia in, PxSGFN pRf