Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1925-04-01

II reminds ne of a statement that
Uncle Joe Cannon made once as to
why the mule was good symbol OF
the Democrs tic party-because It had
neither pride Of ancestry nor hope OF
posterity. This bill reminds me or
that. Nobody wants the Oakes-An-
thoine bill to pass. There was no
support for 1t. These twelve thou
sand people who have petitioned TINS
referendum, all the leaders have told
us round the lobby here that they do
not want it submitted. The primary
! people do not want 1t submitted.
There is nobody wants j. sub
mitted apparently except some OF
this judiciary committee. If this bill
is submitted at all 1t will take
Tallyrand or a Richelieu to explain
to the people what they ought to do
with this mongrel measure coming
up between the other two.
Now there is straight. clean-cut
issue that the people are to vote on.
I agree with the Senator from Ken
! nebec that l am very doubtful as TO
whether we have If the people vote
the O'Connell measure In, whether
they have re-enacted the other stat
utes or not. 1 doubt if they have
| But it would be a good deal better to
leave a clean cut issue to the people,
| even if he have to call the Legisla-
| ture together to enact law provid-
ing the people vote this In; II we
have to have a curative act oy
special session of the Legislature.
than it would to have the great ques-
ton of the suffrage of the people OF
| the State of Maine all snarled up by
this mongrel measure thrust in be-
| tween.
I hope the matter will be killed.
Mr.. ANTHOINE: Mr.. President
after the very able remarks of the
Senator from Kennebec. I feel that
! there is little real need of my ad-
| dressing myself against his honorable
! body. l do. however, want to call at
| tention to one or two phases which
have been brought out in this dis
| cussion.
! At the outset of my remarks some
: few minutes ago, / said I did not pro-
{ pose to discuss the merits of either
f; these bills, or the merits or dement's
/ the primary law. That was not the
| question, as I conceived it, before us.
However ,inasmuch as my distin-
| guished colleague from Cumberland.
! with whom I agree on most matters
but disagree on this matter, mas
much as he has adverted to certain
| phases of the merits of the bill, and
inasmuch as the Senator from Pen
obscot has also spoken in somewhat
| disparaging terms Of. the merits of
! this bill, I thought that perhaps 1t
might be we'll to say few words in
support of some of these PROPOSE
| tions.
Now first. the Senator from Cum
/ I.
carnations Of the State We're OPP
posed to any change in the primary
| law, and he called attention to the
number of petitions which had been
brought in by women's organizations
He also called attention to the people
who had spoken in favor of the
primary law and were opposed to
any changes. AS a matter of fact,
gentlemen, the very afternoon that
we held that primary hearing in this
room, and one of the officers of an
organization of women got up and
said before the judiciary committee
that that whole organization was op-
pcsed to any change In the primary
and very much opposed to the Cakes
bill or the Anthoine bill-they were
two separate bills at that time
when she got up and said that. there
was in this room another officer of
that same organization who came
to me afterwards and said, Senator
Anthoine, that is not a fact. and had
1t not been for causing confusion I
would have gotten up and said there
were as many in our organization in
favor of change in my opinion as
there were against change"
Now ! have had that occur
repeatedly ladies from diff
ferent organizations come to me
and say. These good ladies who get
up here and pledge our organization
to this course of action had no right
to do that" That is immaterial,
however. to the question at issue.
Now the Senator from Cumber-
land, my colleague, Senator Hinck-
ley, referred to a confusion in the
method of appeal. He said that
while it was modified convention,
that really 1t was nothing but the
old convention. / deny that alb
solutely. My original bill provided
this, that no candidate could appeal
from convention nomination who
had not received forty per cent of
the votes of that convention. The
original Cakes hill provided that any
candidate could appeal from the
convention, no matter what his vote.
provided he got a certain number of
petitions.
Now gentlemen, my original bill
provided that no candidate could APP
peal who had not received forty per
cent of the vote in the convention.
The Cakes bill provided any candi-
date could provided he got n petit
ton. My bill provided for no petit
ton.
Now this joint bill which the Sen
ator from Penobscot calls a mon
grel bill,--and I would call his at
tention to the fact that a very much
more distinguished man than the
Senator from Penobscot, a Chief
Justice of the SUPP enc Court of the
United States, who has also occupied
the high position of President of the
United States, in an address stated
that he saw future nominations of
| candidates for office made under a
combination of the convention sys-
tenn and the primary system, which
would incorporate the best features
of both those systems. Now 1 am
quite as we'll content to abide by the
position of the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States
as l am by the opinion of the Sena-
tor from Penobscot.
| Now this new bill proposes, this
consolidated bill proposes, an appeal
of any candidate who has received
twenty per cent OF the votes-in
other words, they. have dropped my
per centage from forty per cent to
twenty per cent-and also provides
u modified petition. such as Mr..
Cakes provided. In other respects,
the bill which We propose to submit
to the people under the order of the
judiciary SO we'll explained by the