Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-10-17

Hate Hon. Simon S. Brown of Water
willie 1t passed both branches, with
out dissenting Republican or Dem
ocratic vote. These facts being adduc
ed, thereupon, in the language of thu
familiar ditty. up the tiue the fly flew.
But back it crawled again, yester'
| day morning, with the following as
| sertion with reference TO the 1893 sta
| tute:
| Now the simplest thing to have
| done would have been to have cut out
| of the liquor law the offending proVl-
| sions. That would have been the sin
| cere and honest thing to have done.
| But instead of doing that the Legisla=
ture accomplished its purpose by
amending the and and or provision
found in another chapter of the sta
tutes.
Brilliant reasoning. The course sug-
gested would have left in full opera
ton the ubiquitous" statute with its
and" and or provision. which
has so menaced the peace, health and
safety of Maine, New Hampshire and
Massachusetts for .three-quarters of a
century At the same time, the
changes suggested in the various
liquor statutes would have been &C
complished at the expense of much
verbiage, and would have left them all
meaning what one simple and COM
prehensive amendment of the "iniqui-
tous" statute said they meant before.
they were changed. Moreover, the very
next statute passed thereafter, criminal
or otherwise, that provided fine and
Imprisonment" would have been sub
jeot to the and, and "or" statute as of
yore. Fly yet again, little one, and
buzz no more
Again, the Sentinel says:
I'VE have no doubt that Democrats
in the Legislature of 1898 were in fav-
or of restoring discretion to the
courts in the matter of sentences I'M
der the liquor law. There was no dis
agreement as to the proposition that
the courts should have such disere-
tion'
Then they must have taken ter
ribIe flop in 1909. What said Mr.. Pat
tangall their leader and spokesman,
whose words are as the breath of life
to the Sentinel? We quote from his
on the Hastings bill:
If you feel like giving the judges
of our courts discretion, put in your
bill now to change and" to or in
the statutes where it occurs. Do this
frankly and fairly. There may be some
members on our side Of tho House who
will vote with you; don't know about
that; | won't. But there is a difference
of opinion
In other words, he was opposed to
In liquor cases, and proved it by vot-
ing for the Hastings bill which took
away SUN uiSSietioH. HS otHliHci
cannot even be consistent in it's in
And here is the last faint buzz of
the fly. ere it sinks peacefully to rest
in the translucent amber:
THE Kennebec Journal asks, as it
has asked before. why the Democratic
Legislature of 1911 did not straighten
out the liquor law. The Democratic
Legislature of 1911 tackled the whole
involved. 1t submitted that
question in its fundamental aspect
to the people. 1t was not called upon
to turn from the main issue at that
time to remove from the law the evil
dence which it bears to this day of
the insincerity and the double dealing
which, from first to last, have marked
the course taken by Republican poll
tieians in their devious dealings with
the question of prohibition
Ye shades of fiy paper. We wouldn't
mar that passage by comment or ar
gument for the world Let us not
paint the lily, or gild refined gold
Let 1t stand in all its evasive stiffness
IN all It's sweet and bucolic simplicity.
as it does, the Democratic
party OF that 'insincerity'' which has
been the keynote of the Seminars
song.