Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1926-05-05
TACTICS" AND Joker"
ARE THAYER'S TEXTS
At CHARLESTON
Especial to Kennebec JournaD

Charleston, Me, May 5-Exposing
what he termed extraordinary tao
tics" Of the State Department Of Edu-
cation. Major Arthur L. Thayer of
| Bangor. candidate for nomination for
governor in the Republican primaries,
speaking at Higgins Classical Insti-
tute, Charleston, this forenoon, con-
| tinued his attack on the proposed
constitutional amedment provided in
the Maher bill, passed by the Legis
| lature. and which prohibits the use of
public funds for other than public
| institutions and public purposes.
Major Thayer opened fire with a
| broadside directed at a bulletin pre-
pared by the State Department of
Education and which was authorized
by the Executive Council in a coun-
ell order passed Dec. 3, 1925, which
| reads as follows:
Ordered: That the commissioner
of Education be authorized to have
printed 10000 copies of the proposed
constitutional amendment; the law
regulating academies and private
schools and Interpretation thereof
representing IL page bulletin at
cost of $154 any Interpretation Of
said proposed constitutional amend
ment included in said bulletin shall'
be approved by the Attorney General
tas not including moot questions"
1.-The idea of publishing this bull
letin." said Major Thayer. was pre-
srmably to give public information.
1t will be noted that the order says
| that the bulletin shall not include
moot questions, meaning that it
should be confined to the law and the
facts and not theory or speculation of
an individual. The provision that it
must be approved by the Attorney
General was doubtless to insure fair
presentation of the question at issue.
Now has it fairly been presented
in the bulletin and was the bulletin
prepared as ordered? ] say that it
was not. and / will give you the
proof. / am making no charges of
intent, but l do claim that extraordi-
nary tactics have been followed by
the Department of Education in con-
nection with the issuance of this
pamphlet.
First. it was not authorized by the
ATTORNEY General. I wrote Commits
sioner Thomas and asked him if the
bulletin had received such authorize
ton. / quote from his reply: "The
manuscript for the bulletin was sub
mitted to the Attorney Generals
office for their approval. I believe
they find no objection to 1t what
ever. Twill say, however. that there
is typographical error in the last
paragraph of the Introduction where
the word approved should be OPP
posed"
Later I wrote to the attorney
generals office asking if the attorney
general had approved the bulletin.
From Sanford l.. Fogg, deputy attor-
ney general, received the following
reply:
Answering your letter Of April oath
/ am pleased to inform you that the
Interpretation of the proposed amend
ment as contained in the Bulletin you
enclosed, has not been approved by
this department.
This appears to answer the mat
ter of approval which the council or
der demanded. Now let us look at
some other matters in connection
with this bulletin designed, presum-
ably, to inform voters as to the pro-
posed amendment.
ION the front page of the Bulletin
Is the following title: Resolve Pro-
posing an amendment to the Consti-
tuition Prohibiting the Use of Public
Funds for Sectarian Schools and for
Certain other Purposes / call to your
attention that the title of the resolve
as it appears in Chapter 5S of the
Public Resolves of 1926 is: Resolve
Proposing an Amendment to the Con-
stitution Prohibiting the use of Pub
lie Funds for other than Public Insti-
tutions and Public Purposes
"Why was not the last title used by
the Department of Education? Was
there a desire to give the impression
that the amendment is primarily and
principally to prevent the appropria-
ton of public money for sectarian
schools?
you noted that Dr. Thomas in his
letter, above quoted, remarked upon
a typographical error in which the