Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-10-20
Where We LANDED"


With battered nose and swollef
eyes, bruised. smarting. and almos
ready to take the count in the ajal
sentence. controversy, the WaterVillt
Sentinel appropriately entities its lat
est editorial Where it Lands By
.'it' they mean US, and we cheerfullS
admit that we landed on the Sen
tinei.
Novelist McGrath has a tale where
in prize fighter describes to clergy
man a blow on the ribs, in the eyes
and on the nose, in the professional
yernacular: Il hooked him one on the
Stats. BACKED his lamps, and drew
the burgundy from his trombone OF
course, by all canons of refinement
and gentle breeding, We are pfecludeo
from drawing any analogies from sueh
a source, yet as we review our re-
cent contest with the Sentinel, We
well. excuse our modest bushes.
The Sentinelts last punch lacks
steam-pardon us! We meant to say
that the Sentinels final contribution
to this vigorous controversy is def
cient in those vigorous attributes OF
mental vigour which--er, would make
it vigorous.
1t is now reduced to a miserable
bubble over the method of preserv :
ing the admittedly sound principle OF
judicial discretion.
That principle is embodied in gen.
eral statute providing that when any
other statute imposes fine and i'm
prisonment" the court may sentence
to either OF both For three quarters
of a century this has been the law OF
Maine, New Hampshire and Massa-
chusetts. In 1887 and 1891 certain
amendments to our liquor laws di-
vested the court of discretion in liquor
cases by employing the hitherto UNI
used phraseology fine and in addi-
ton thereto Imprisonment" An ex-
perience of six years under these stat
utes demonstrated that it was wiser
to return to the time honored prin-
ciple To accomplish this, and at the
same time safeguard the general
principle against similar phraseology
in future statutes, what was the sem
sible and indeed the only thing to do?
Obviously, to amend the general stat
ute SO that it should cover all such
cases. And that is precisely what the
Legislature did in 1899, without a dis
senting Democratic vote, and with the
active cooperation of the two distin-
guished Democratic members of the
judiciary committee, one of whom is a
member of our present supreme court.
And 1t has been the law of Maine ever
since.
That is all there is to it. The Senti-
mel has been screamingly funny
throughout this controversy. First. ii
branded as "iniquitous" the law which
Maine has had for 10 years. New
Hampshire for 81, and Massachusetts
for q. That was before it knew its his
tory. Row it stoutly asserts that il is
q supporter of judicial discretion il
liquor cases Yet il splits a hair 'twixt
rriticizing the method of restoring ju-
dieial discretion in 1898, and overlook!
the fact that it's patron saint, Mr.
Pattangali, voted to take away sucl
discretion in 1909.
II argued long and loud about Re
publican "insiHcerity'' in the legisla
tion OF 1893. but qualified for the final
in the hundred yards dash by it's quiel
getaway when we showed the Demo
cratic connection with that Legislation
We don't know yet what its presen
attitude is on the statute conferrin
judicial discretion. 1t has denounce
the statute and in the same breat
praised the principle for which tn
statute stands. And then its answer
our query as to why Pattangall and hi
cohorts, who so furiously denounce
this law in the Legislature of 1870
when members of the minority part!
didn't fix it i'm 1911, when they were
eontrcI--that answer has the triple ka
links wizard beaten to fragile.
All that, the Sentinel is now playln
for Is .that serenest of satisfaction
the last word" 1t would be most III
sportsmanlike to deny this trihing IA
yor to a fallen foe. Go to it, little ont
- E..rar.