The Connecticut labor news., 1923-10-27
HOW MAINE VOTERS AT
 REFERENDUM VOTE TURNED
 DOWN 48-HOUR PROPOSAL
Farmers Ten to One Against It and Only Two Industrial Gen. ters Actually Put It Over.

ovO1e
 Portland, Me- Oct. 26.-The voters of Maine rejected the proposed 48 hour law for women and children in industry in special state election by a majority of more than 10000 votes, the referendum law being defeated, 53,o77 votes to 34,o46. The total vote cast in the special election was only 50 per cent. of that boiled in last years election for governor.
 Only two counties-Androsco and York-both important textile centers, voted in favor of the 48-hour law Nine counties rejected 1t by coin county led all others against the proposal by "a seven to one margin, while Aroostok, Franklin and Waldo counties were six to one against the measure. The ratio in Oxford coun- ty was nearly four to one, while in Hancock, Piscataquis, Washington and Sagadahock counties 1t was two to one The other five counties gave smaller majorities against the pro- posed amendment
 - Analysis of the vote shows that while the city population favored the measure with many exceptions, rural districts were lined up solidly against 1t in almost every instance.
 Tabulation of the seven cities in which the vote was heaviest gives: Yes, I4,oI6; No, Io,872.
 Portland and Bangor, the largest and the third largest city in Maine, defeated the referendum. Neither of these cities, however, carries on manufacturing on large scale. In |. .4.a t,a the total in favor of the measure, but rural districts were recorded nearly unanimously against it.
 Typical of the character of the vote on the question was the action of the twin cities, Lewiston and Auburn, and Biddeford and Saco. The two former in each case favored the meas ure, while the two later rejected 1t. Neither city is made than a mile re- moved from the other twin city.
 Returns from that third of the state which includes all the industrial cen ters and the most thickly populated sections gave majority of more than 1000 against the measure.
 Portland, the largest city in Maine, and the spot in which the campaign both for and against the measure was most vigorously carried out, voted against the bill by majority of 4o8 out of nearly 7,ooo ballots, less than third of the voting population of the city.
 Bangor also rejected the proposed bill by about 400 votes. Lewiston, brook and Skowhegan, winch .aay be considered the leading industrial cen ters, voted i'll favor of the measure hy 1arpe rnaioritieS
 Cumberland county, the largest in the state which contains the three largest cities, Portland, South Port land and Westbrook, and in which the urban and rural population is about evently divided, voted against the pro- posed bill, 7,42o to 1857.
 In Y York county, where are situated the Pepperell Mills and several other large manufacturing companies as well as shoe factories, the citizens registered approval of the measure in only three of the 26 towns and two cities, Saco, the smaller of the two, rejecting it.
 Aroostok county, which IS typically a rural district, voted against the measure, the vote Tn 28 of the towns generally running as high as 10 to I.
 Following is list of the vote in the pIlHClpdl CltlcS dnu lOWHS III MdllCB figures in favor of the measure being presented first and figures against 1t second.
 Portland, yes 3IoI, no 362o; Bangor, o53-I375; Lewiston, 3I35-II65; Au- burnr rI45o-I674; Middeford, 27oo-6Io; Saco, 673-7oo; Sanford, I8o7-7oI; Brewer, .Ie5-343; Oldtown, 5Io-4o6; Lisbon, 423-2o8; Bath, 4o5-482; Au- gusta. Io62-Io55; Gardiner, 272-557; I43-224; Waterville, 1862 8oo; Winslow, 257-I68; Belfast, IT, 5Io; Bar Harbor, 78-I46; Ellsworth, Camden, 346-23I; Rockland, 437-477; Thomaston, Ioo-I2o; Paris, I 53-5oI; Rumford, 4o3-463; Dover, I78-4o5; Milo, 3oo-465; Fair field, 218-255; Skowhegan, 665-465; Calais, 2oo-233; Eastport, 54-I36; Ma chias, 3o-I63.
 The vote by counties was as fol-