Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1923-03-12
REMARKS Of REP,
mAhER IN DEBATE
ON SECTARlAN AIN

Rouse on the question OF ala 20 gu. ns
.a,ian SCHOOLS and groups onlv ahn,,t
haif OF tho debate waa n,,S,s.Ia'
Inc Barwise resolve proposinS .rnS
uai Withholding OF Statc Ala p ~,
private institutions unti, 1asn e..
entirely after that date was The s,,h ~
1ect Of the debate. 'e SUI
From the Judiciary co,,m;,t.
came two reports, q majority "o,,rht
not to pass" and q minority "n,,eht
TO pass In a new draft" which a..
empted private Institutions NOT 70.
Ilgious in character. Representative
Darwlse urged acceptance of the
minority report and his remarks
nave already been published. Repre-.
sentative Benedict r. Maher opposed
acceptance and the following are hia
NJ: MAHEn OF Augusta. ~,
Speaker and Gentlemen: n ssvo,Ha:
upon me to answer, a. best con
the fair statement Of tho case
presented by the gentleman from
bangor (Mr. Barwise) because
happen TO be q member Of the Judi
cary committee. the majority Of
which has submitted a report at
variance with the minority report.
the adoption OF which is now asked:
ana there may occur at once in the
MINDS OF all the members present a
further coincidence. that I happen to
oeIohg 10 the particular RELIGIOUS
persuasion that there is some. at
Ieast latent. suggestion that this
patticular change would particularly
aHeot. l think 1 can address myself
to the arguments advanced here in
the same temperate and restrained
manner that has characterized the
lalr presentation made by the gentle.
man from Bangor. and I agree with
MIN that that Is the way for menu
bers OF this general court to APP
proach any matter OF this magni-
tude. cannot go quite so far with
the gentleman as his peroration
would indicate. For instance, l am
sure that he could not have meant,
what would have seemed to have
been the reasonable deduction from
MS peroration. that there is any man
mere VINO. on his oath. representing a
constituency in this State as a men,
Der of this coordinate branch of the
government. will vote upon this, or
any other, matter other than as his
conscience suggests and his judg-
ment dictates; because il 1t has
come to the stage when policy Is to
prevail and expedieney decide. it is a
regrettable situation. doubt very
much If the gentleman even meant
what his peroration would indicate:
but it was an appeal to you. just as
1 would appeal. to vote just exactly
as your common sense tells you,-
and your common sense will be
good guide for your conscience as
we'll as for your Judgment. Now it
seems to me that he has aptly stated
the history of this House meas,ire,
ana l think j am not aside from the
question if I simply say that the
inception of 1t seems to have been
in the Executive branch. We notice
in the Executive message a distinct
reference to the proposition that
public monies should not be used for
other than public purposes. We all
agree with that. 1 do not see how
any man who is at all able to dis,
charge the functions of a legislator
could differ with it. The danger
with dogmatic statements like that
is that there is apparently created
condition the opposite of it. Now
no one wants to divert public monies
to other than public purposes 1t
has been determined over and over
again that charities and education
are public purposes. What are pub
lie purposes is a judicial question and
the courts have determined again
and again that these are public pur-
poses. The speciousness Of the posi-
ton Is that you must always have a
public agency in order to the most
effectively and effectually discharge
functions having TO do with public
purposes. two totally different,
absolutely opposed. propositions.
Following the executive sug-
gestion. there was introduced by the
gentleman from Bangor (Mr. Bar
wise) his proposition for a Constitu-
tional amendment, which he has
adverted to, and which I do not
understand he now argues for. l
have not heard him move to sub
stitute his amendment for either re-
port of the committee. The gentle
man from Bangor seems to be will
ing, If i get the force of his argu-
ment. to have that particularly
sweeping, comprehensive amendment
of his narrowly focused to the pro-
position of religious institution.
cause or purpose. Whereas his
amendment was sweeping. covering
all private agencies, not alone maxi
ing the determining test religious.
That proposition, I think, it is
perfectly safe to say will not be
advanced again in this session.
because I doubt il there could be
mustered q sufficient vote to give
the same respectful consideration
whether the suggestion emanates
from the upper or the lower branch
of the Legislature. or from any
other coordinate branch of the gov
eminent, that we will not permit
public funds to be used for the
alienation Of suffering by q private
agency. such as the Augusta Hospital.
the Bath Hospital. or any of the
numerous eleemosynary institutions
that are under private control. but
doing public work and Gods work all
over Maine.
We come now to the minority re-
port here, which to my mind Is very
much more Objectionable than the
somewhat parallel measure-Which
is not, Of course, before us
introduced in the upper branch, ana
which is very much more objection
able than the suggestions when 1
think were based on specious prem
ises made by the Chief Executive.
because it narrows absolutely to
religious test. l say. gentlemen. and
the member from FIT. Kent. that this
measure is deserving of defeat for
three reasons: 1t is absolutely UNI
necessary from legal standpoint; 1t
ia absolutely unwise from business
standpoint; and it is absolutely Inn
polite and unjust from a religious
standpoint.
The gentleman (Mr. Barwise) at
tho outset of his argument inadvert-
emily. I think. Notwithstanding his
wide experience with the Constitu-
ton and his intimate interest in its
present language. think made. I'M.
Willingly. an erroneous statement OF
s.sa.a4inn IL understood him