Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1917-12-15
LEON G. c. BROWNS ARGUMENT.
ON REFERENDUM PETITION.
Also Submitted to Gov. Miiken-Probably the
Last, as Lewiston Police Case Was Argued
Orally-Mr. Brown Claims That Technical Err
rors In the Inland Fisheries and Game Petition
Should Not Defeat the Referendum

f, The argument Of Leon G.. c. Brown
of Milo in the matter Of the hearing on
the referendum asked on the act of the
Legislature abolishing the old Inland
Fisheries and Game Commission and
establishing a commissioner of inland
fisheries and game. has been submitted
to Governor Carl Z. Millken 1t is
probably the last to be filed, as the
case of the lewiston Police Com
mission was argued orally at the close
OF that hearing and no appearance was
made in the matter of the State paper
petitions.
Counsel Ralph w. Crockett of Lew
lston. who has handled the investiga-
ton for the remonstrants to the petit
tons. states that he will not submit
further argument. as the cassmdoes not
need it, He argued orally on the
Lewiston Police case and the points
a. issue in each case were then COW
cred. Further talk or written argu-
ment is needless. Sea and Shore
Fisheries Commissioner Dunbar has
filed written argument. but / find
nothing in il not brought out at the
hearing and fully reported in the
press.
Il have not been so told. bat u de-
lcision by Governor Milliken early next
week would not surprise me-
Mr.. Browns argument follows:
! The people of Maine have a right
&c petition for a referendum. In this
instance they have done so with the
pNneCfafinn and tho oh RI
that if ten thousand legal names are
found to be upon the petitions filed
with the Secretary of State before July
H. last. that YOU the governor. being
the sole deciding authority will al
low the voters Of Maine to decide for
themselves whether they desire to
have a one-man commission in the de-
'partrnent of Inland Fisheries and
Game replace the old commission
where. since the beginning three men
have exercised the power Of commits
sioners to the satisfaction of all the
people.
who demanded the change in the
personnel of this commission Who
appeared before the legislative commit
tee that considered the matter? Was
there ever any real demand for a
change. The answer is very appar-
tnt when il is found that only one man
appeared in favor of the change and
he evidently expected to be appointed
as the one man commissioner
AS | remember the matter. the
House of Representatives voted not to
abolish the old commission last winter.
and then suddenly in the closing hours
Of dvinty ! inv no
resurrected and passed by the mere
handful of members present.
Il refer to this simply as showing
that the people did not demand or ex-
lpect change, and have q right to in
sist upon a referendum to prevent a
law going into effect which was never
desired by the people, but was appar-
entity born from political expedency.
All the petitioners have requested
is chance to vote upon this question.
Why should they be denied if the
law is just, and there was a good
for a change. why should the petition
ers be forced TO contend against the
mass Of technicalities that have entered
into the protracted hearing that we
have just concluded? The only ques
ton to my mind that you, the gov
ernor. should consider in the absence
of fraud, and where is the fraud, so
far as the petitioners are concerned, is
whether ten thousand legal voters
honestly placed their signatures upon
the petitions.
Mistakes Of the clerks Mistakes of
the certifying petitioners Mistakes
caused by Implications! These are mere
errors. made honestly as has been
shown by this hearing. Should the
referendum he defeated simply by
mistakes? Shall every legal techni-
cality be taken advantage of in order
to count out the thousands of honest
voters in the good State of Maine
who petitioned you. the governor. for
the simple right to be allowed to ex
press their approval or disapproval OF
this unnecessary bill which was one OF
1.-THE parting plumbers of the last Legis-