Daily Kennebec journal., 1911-04-06
Passage Of Penne|I Bill Evades
The Referendum.
Courts May Decide Effort Has
Been Technically Successful.
Atty. Heath Ably Discusses Status
Of PenneII and Davies Bills.

The journal, in order to sati-', he
general desire for information as to
the present status of the Pennel di-
rect primary bill, which was passed
by the Legislature that las Just ad-
journed, and the Davies direct pri-
mary bill introduced under the in
has submitted the question to Hon.
Hon. Herbert NJ. Heath Of Augusta,
recognized legal authority. Mr..
Heath declares in no uncertain terms
that the Governor and the Legisla-
ture have attempted to nullfy the
will of the people and says that it
is for the supreme court to say wheth-
er or not their effort has been techni-
cally successful.
Mr.. Heath says
You ask me whether the so called
Pennell Bill upon the direct primary
was constitutionally passed and what
is now the status OF that bill and of
the so called Davies Bill. initiated un-
Ger the Constitution. 1t is very
A3erious. proposition for any court to
kcide or for any practising lawyer to
ayssert that any laN passed by the
Legislature and approved bysthe Gov
ernor of the state is unconstitutional.
1t is well settled that all acts Of the
Legislature are presumed to be con-
stitutional, that no act Will be de-
clared by the court to be unconstitu-
tional on doubtful grounds. that where
there are two Interpretations the con-
Stitutional one must hc adopted and
that the unconstitutionality must
clearly appear.
The so called Davies Bill was pro-
posed to the Legislature by more than
10000 voters. as required by the Con-
stitution, and was seaSonably filed in
the Office of the Secretary of State.
who certified to the Legislature that
the requisite number of voters had
proposed or initiated the law. The
Governor of the state, therefore
through his Secretary of State, had
official knowledge of this request of
the people.
The Constitution goes on to say
ANY measure thus proposed by not
less than 1900 electors. unless en-
acted without change by the Leglsla-
ture at the session at which il is pre-
sented shall be submitted to the elec-
tcrs together with any amended form,
substitute or recommendation of the
Legislature, and in such manner that
the people can choose between the
competing measures or reject both.'
The so called Davies Bill was not en-
acted without change by the Legisla-
ture. The Legislature had the right
to submit this bill to the people but
failed to do SO. This was plainly an
unfair violation of constitutional
duty, but as will be shown later, the
Governor is now compelled by the
Constitution to perform the duty him
self The Pennell Bill covers the
same subject matter and was in fact
substitute for the Davies Bill. The
language of the Constitution is
peremptory, When the Legislature has
received from the people a properly
initiated bill, the Constitution says
that if the Legislature is unwilling to
enact that particular bill without
change, the bill shall be submitted to
the people together with any substi-
tute and in such a manner that the
people can choose between the COM
petinS measures or reject both. The
language is mandatory. SHALL sub
init. not may. 1t is plain that the
Davies Bill and the Pennell Bill were
competing measures covering the same
subject matter. 1t is clear AMI plain
that it was the moral duty of the
Legislature to obey this constitutional
mandate. 1t is clear that the Legis-
lature was guilty of at least an unfair
evasion of the Constitution. Instead
of submitting to the people the PEN
nell Bill it saw fit to pass it as a law
and to submit it to the Governor for
a dis approval.
The Governor has seen fit in his
approval of the Pcnnel Bill, to as
sumo and exercise a power which the
people plainly and clearly intended to
reserve to themselves. How he can
explain to the people the propriety of
what is at least a moral usurpation of
power is a question between him and
the people. Whether he had a techni-
cal constitutional right to approve the
bill is for the Supreme Court to de-
eide in appropriate proceedings. AS a
mere lawyer practicing at the Bar and
with no official or professional respon-
sibility I should not care to give a
positive opinion upon the matter or to
say what / thought the Court would
Continued on Page adve). So