Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1925-02-20

common needs OF the rural SECTIONS
ana to give them encouragement and
help. That ,,-ill Be to the advantage
Of the whole State. ] shall also pre-"
sent to this House an income tax
bill. am proud to pay such a tax
The SPEAKER: The Chair is in
clined to give any member consider
able latitude in debate, but the gen.
tleman will kindly address himself
to the motion before the House.
Mr.. ROODY continuing: When
these things are equalized. when we
have accomplished all this, we can
stand under the banner Of the State
Of which We are so proud and truly
say 'Dirigo, Elaine leads, mot only
in her industries but in every other
way.
Mr.. PALMER of Island Falls: Mr..
Speaker and members OF the House,:
I have no Grafton to deliver on this
resolve. I just want to rise and let
the people and the members know
where the people of Aroostook stand
in regard to this. It is not fair to
accuse people of not being progress
sive because they are not able to be.
/ was sorry to hear the gentleman
from Auburn. Mr.. Wing, crack the
party whip. The people Of Aroostook
have the name of being just as good
as the people in the rest
OF the State. 1 think our record
will bear rs out. But we represent
q people that owe twenty million
dollars. Ten million dollars Is what
the farmers OF Aroostook owe the
fertilizer people alone. Ten million
more represent the mortgages on the
farms. Now it is not fair to accuse
the people Of Arpostook county OF
not sbeing progressive, because they
are. We do net feel - q delegation
that we should vote for one cent or
needless appropriation to add to the
burdens of our people, and I wish
that we would not try to make this
a party measure. l can count num-
Der of the democratic members who
are voting for the measure and l can
count a lot Of good Republicans who
are voting against it. They are do
ing so because they represen. their
people. It was said yesterday after
noon to us that all who were against
It we're the Ar, ostook delegation and
the Frenchmen. That may be so, but
I doubt 1t. Suppose it is! II I am
from Aroostook county and represent
people who do not feel that they are
able to expend money to advertise the
southern part f the State, should
vote for It? II represent some
French people, poor laborers. who are
working for small wage and trying
to pay for their homes, should / be
called down for voting against this
measure? I do not think so. / be-
lieve that every man here is voting
the way he feels himself or to repre-
sent his people, and l resent the
cracking of the party whip for / am
just as good Republican as any
body. and 1 did not even go with the
Progressives. I thank you. Cap
plause).
Mr.. HALE of Portland: Mr.. Speak
er and gentlemen: I share the view
of the gentleman from Island Falls
(Mr. Palmer) who has just spoken
think It is extremely regrettable
that there has been any attempt to
make of this a party question.
think it is extremely regrettable that
any Republican should feel called
upon to vote for this resolve and
against the motion of the gentleman
from Lewiston (Mr. Holmes) to re-
consider. I think it is extremely re-
grettable that any imputation should
be cast upon his party loyalty.
think that the Governor of Maine,
IL he were here. would be the first to
deny that this was party question.
l do not think that the Republican
party has ever been committed in
any way to the policy OF State ad-
vertisement. I am not aware that
anything was in the party platform
about State advertisement, and,
although I am well aware that the
Governor himself has personally IA
vored or did in his inaugural address
personally favor some such measure
as this. think we must also bear In
mind that the Governor was before
us yesterday saying very frankly
that tho situation had changed since
he came before us at the opening of
the session, and that a new situation
financially had been brought to light.
Mr.. Speaker, the members Of this
House who oppose this resolve are
loyal sons of Maine, and they do not
deny that publicity has its uses, and
a certain efficacy. I say. and think
many people agree with me. that
publicity is not the function of the
State, but it is the function of the
individual. 1 think we must face
that broad question of principle very
sQuareiy before we even come to con-
slider whether twenty-five thousand
dollars is lot of money or whether
1t is only a little money.
The gentleman from Portland. Mr..
Nichols, told you yesterday that the
da, whose example il so often cited,
have never spent one cent for pub
licity. picked up the morning pa
pers this morning and I read that
American tourists left in Europe last
year four hundred million dollars.
That four hundred million dollars Is
almost the difference between the
solvency and the insolvency Of Eu-
rope, stricken as 1t is by the war.
The tourist business means an i'm
mense amount to Europe. Has any
gentleman here heard of any Euro
pean nation spending money on pub
licity? Even the Swiss? The anal
ogy suggested by the gentleman
from Calais, Mr.. Beckett, between
the manufacturing or industrial man
spending money on advertising and
the State spending money for that
purpose Is a deceptive analogy which
Is likely to mislead us. The execu-
tive Of a great private industry by
keeping his finger on the sales or
returns from a particular industry
as related to its advertising expendi-
lures can have some yardstick to
measure whether his publicity is eff
fective. I question very gravely
whether you can ever tell whether
the twenty-five thousand dollars
which you spend in these two years
has ever brought one cent into the
State. We will be here ten years
from now still debating whether such
expenditures have been of real ben
eft.
also think, Mr.. Speaker. that a
further objection to publicity on be-
half or by the State Is that while
the expense of this form Of taxation
Is universal, the benefit of this form
of taxation Is badly distributed.
There is no question in my mind. and
l do not believe in the minds of the
gentlemen and lady of this House,