Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1914-08-29
HON. H. P. GARDNER
OFFERS "RECORD"
FOR PUBLICATION
The Inconsistencies of the Pro-
gressive Candidates Position
And Claims-Proud of the
Record He Made When Mis-
led by Bosses"

+. GarQneT Resume Oh MS pupiiC
record. We presume it is the same to
which he referred in his address at
CITY Hall. Augusta, and of which he
declared he was proud. We are NOT
surprised that Mr.. Gardner is proud
of that record because we have so Of
ten found ourselves in absolute dis
| agreement with him. We could not
be proud of that record and maintain
the position We now maintain or
make the claims that Mr.. Gardner
makes without admission that needs
and demands have changed in ten
years and that we are moving with the
people
In the 10th paragraph of Mr. Gard
ner's record" he justifies our long
growing fear that he is willing to mis-
lead to gain temporary ends. Read
what he says there and then remem-
Der or refer to what we have said
about Mr.. Gardner's Bath address. We
plainly quoted the Lewiston Journals
news report which stated that Mr..
Gardner gave as a reason for voting
against important progressive meas
ures that he was misled by Republ-
can leaders. In Mr.. Gardeners letter
to us he does not deny that he said
what the Lewiston Journal and Bath
Times reported, but says we made the
allegation. That savors very strongly
Of falsehood, for we quoted, on reliable
authority (the Bath Times) what Mr..
Gardner himself said.
Mr.. Gardner goes further. He says
that we accused him of being sub
servient to Republican bosses who
wished to stifie legislation for the best
| interests of the people. Again Mr..
Gardner stoops to Misrepresentation.
For we do not believe such Republic
cans existed outside the gray cells of
Mr.. Gardeners imaginative brain. We
told our readers. that Mr.. Gardner
made such claims in answering ques-
tons, and he does not deny We
ridiculed the position of a gubernatorial
candidate publicly proclaiming that he
did not remember how he voted but
did remember that he was "inexperi-
enced' and misled by Republican
bosses" and now he tops it all off
with the defiant assertion that he is
proud of his record.
Taking Mr.. Gardner at his word, as
reported by the Bath Times and the
Lewiston Journal and which he does
not deny in his letter, the record
which he submits for our publication
is the result of Republican organiza-
ton influence, who endeavored to
sidetrack and stifle legislation favor
able to the people"
Mr.. Gardner claimed at Bath that
he did not vote as he desired but as
Republican leaders told him. His
record" is the summary of those
votes. He now says he is proud of
his record.
Why did not Mr.. Gardner plainly
state, SO that the average reader and
voter could instantly understand, how
he voted, instead of attempting to be-
fog the immediate issues by Legisla-
tive reports of proceedings?
We are publishing all that Mr.
Gardner sent in as his record" to
show the public to what length he is
willing to go to becloud the record of
which he is so proud, and to prevent
his sure claim of martyrdom if we
had cut out a line of the letter how
ever far from pertinent to the ISSUE
We are giving it all and for con-
venience of any who may desire to
comment, in speech or in press we
have numbered the paragraphs. There
are AZ of them, if we have counted
right.
And, finally, we would boil it all
down to this:
In the Senate in 1908. Mr. Gardner
voted against woman suffrage; now he
says he favors it.
He voted against the initiative and
referendum; now he favors it.
He voted against the bill to elect
U. S. senator's by popular vote; now
he favors it
Mr. Gardner allowed the bill to
abolish fees killed without division.
Mr.. Gardner, we are told, made tho
| statement that when he was a man
! past 80 years of age and of sufficient
experience among men to have been
repeatedly elected to the Legislature,
he obeyed certain bosses. What bosses
is he obeyina now?
Here is the record" of which Mr..
Gardner is proud:
Mr.. Gardeners Record
Aug. 27, 1914.
Editor Kennebec Journal:
! lin your issue of Tuesday, Aug
25. you have seen fit to sharply arraigr
and criticise my record while a mem
Der of the House in 1899 and 1901, and
further as member of the Mains
Senate in 1903 and 1905.
2-Taking up various measures dis
cussed by you and quoting from the
Legislative Record, it is found that the
Initiative and Referendum was not be-
! fore the House in 1899 or 1901. In 1908
a hill was introduced in favor of the
! above measure, was referred to the
Committee on Judiciary in concur
renee, and on March Goth. 1903, the
Committee reported that the same
should be reported to the next Legis-
| lature.
Gin the Senate on March END, 1905,
| the consideration of the majority and
minority reports of the Committee on
| the judiciary relative to this matter
was resumed
4-Mr, Clark, Senator from Hancock
moved that the minority report be
substituted for the majority report.