Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1916-11-17
FORMER JUSTICE
ANSWERS PATTkNGAlL

Former Chief Justice Emery has
written the following letter to the
Lewiston journal:
l have read with interest and
pleasure the comments and criticisms.
editorial and other. in the Journal
upon my recent letter suggesting that
the Governor elect would not have
the power to meet the expectations
of many that he would thoroughly en-
force the laws, especially that known
as the prohibitory law. l am glad
to find that the suggestion has ex-
cited some attention and shall well
come further criticisms to the end
that the situation and the proper
remedy for it may be made clear. In
the meantime I think answers may
be given to at least some Of the
criticisms already made.
My respected friend, Hon. Henry
w. Cakes, if correctly reported, ex-
presses the opinion that the Governor
already has power enough and does
not need to have any of his old
powers restored to him. The only
| constitutional or statutory provision
! Mr.. Cakes cites, however, is the
statute of 1905 providing for the trial
and punishment of a sheriff or county
attorney "wilfuiiy and constantly
neglecting" his duty to enforce the
laws. But what power has the Gov
ernor to enforce or use that statute?
1t will not be claimed that he should
personally appear in the various
courts to initiate and conduct the
prosecutions, and what statute au
thorizes him to appoint g. deputy for
that purpose? True. he can request
the attorney general or some other
person to act in the premises, but
government means command not mere
request.
Again, officials indicted under that
statute can often under our present
system of judicial procedure delay
Anal conviction for year or more
during which time the guilty official
remains in Office still neglecting his
duty and foutins the Governor. I do
mot think that statute avails much
toward enabling the Governor to take
care that the laws be faithfully ex-
ecuted."
My geniol friend, Attorney General
Pattangall, urges that the lack of
power which would free Cow elect
Milliken from blame for any nom
enforcement of the laws, should also
excuse Gov. Plalsted and Gov. Curtis
for such nom enforcement. In this
fully agree with him, and in my
former letter I expressly stated that
Gov. Curtis should not be blamed for
not doing what he did not have the
power to do.
| The attorney general also expresses
regret that I did not call attention
to this lack of power in the Governor
during the administrations of Gov,
Plaisted and Gov. Curtis and waited
until Republican Governor was about
to take office The inquiry suggests
itself. Why did not the attorney gen.
eral in Gov. Plalsled's and Gov. Cur
it's administrations call attention to
their lack of power to enforce the
laws and their consequent freedom
from responsibility for any non-en-
forcement? That lack of power was
not a secret known only to me. It
was known as well to thousands Of,
the political and personal friends of
those worthy governors.
Further, I would call the attention
of the attorney general to an article
of mine in the Maine Law Review
| for February, 1915, only a month
after Gov. Curtis took office, in which
article 1 did, as clearly as l could,
call attention to the Governors help
lessness in the matter of enforcing
the laws. If 1 remember correctly,
Gov Curtis at one time when urged
to take some action toward stricter
enforcement quoted that article as
showing his want of power and
justifying his non-action. The State
librarian afterward requested copy
of the article for the State library.
In view of the above 1 think 1 may
fairly claim to be acquitted of any
partisan motion or purpose in again
calling attention to the helplessness
of the Governor and urging the
| restoration to him of at least some
of his former powers, if he is to be
held responsible tor the enforcement
of the laws.
| In fairness to the attorney general.
I assent to his statement that the
attorney general is not any more
| than the Governor responsible for the
| non execution Of any law. He is also
practically helpless. Neither he nor
his assistant attorney general can
personally go about the State initiat-
ing and conducting prosecutions I'M
der mere misdemeanor statutes like
the prohibitory law. and no authority
is given either of them to appoint
officers for such prosecutions. In sug-
costing in my former letter the
restoration to the Governor of his
former power to select and remove
(for cause of oourse) the attorney
general, the chief law officer of his
administration. l did not mean that
that officer was 10 be held responsible
for the non enforcement of the laws
in any county. II my letter gave
| that impression ] wish to recall that
much of it,
adhere, however, to the propo-
sition to which Mr.. Pattangall frankly
gives his personal assent, that the
Governor should have the power to
select and dismiss the chief law
officer of his administration, and this,
in agreement with Mr.. Pattangall. on
general principles. Indeed, have not
~