MAINE AND LIQUOR.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3331, 25 September 1911, Page 5

MAINE AND LIQUOR.

“PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE RICHT TO VOTE.”

SPEECH BY GOVERNOR PLAISTED.

PRESENT LAW CONDEMNED

The following is the full text of the private telegram received in Wellington from Auckland:—

*‘Cablegrams -were received in Auckland yesterday from London and New York, stating that the official result of the referendum held this month in the State of Maine has resulted in the repeal of Prohibition. In 1858 Maine adopted the present system of Prohibition, and this is the first opportunity given to the people of the State to register their vote at a special election when no party contest for the control of the Government or the claims of rival candidates could detract from the consideration of this question.” The question of repeal was raised at the election in September last by Governor Plaisted, the first Democrat elected in 30 years, the main plank of whose platform was to give the people of Maine an opportunity of voting upon the question of the repeal of the prohibitory laws. The following is an extract from the inaugural speech of Governor Plaisted on taking office on January sth, 1911 : “The Democratic party promised to submit to popular vote the question of constitutional prohibition. This question is difficult to approach without encountering prejudice and blind fanaticism. But it is your duty to consider it fairly, having in view present conditions and the welfare of the State. The issue presented and. given a prominent place in the political campaigns for years was whether the Constitutional amendment prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors should be submitted to popular vote by a resolution of the Legislature. A majority of the voters of our State have registered a desire that this be done. That a great social question, which is receiving the best thought, should be hidden in the depths oi a State Constitution, and the people denied the right, after repeated demands, to consider or discuss it is not in accordance with the awakened spirit of popular government. Legislation has now made it possible to ascertain the will of the people of this State at a special election, when no party contests for control of Government or claims of rival candidates can detract from the consideration of this important question, and I cannot believe that the Legislature will longer refuse the just demand for the exercise of this right. If a small part of the energy which has been expended in our State in an attempt to lessen the evils of intemperance by law had been directed to the education of a public sentiment against intemperance, a great advance would have neen made;, but instead of relying upon the good judgment and intelligence of our fellow citizens and their desire to make the most of life and its' opportunities, we have pursued the false course of relying upon law. The people of Maine have unmistakably set the seal of condemnation upon this law, and by the most potent means at their command the ballot have emphatically repudiated it. The time has arrived when plain words should be spoken. For more than half a century we have had upon our Statute Book and for a quarter of a century in the constitution of our State prohibition of the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors, and looking back over these years, no fair-minded man can refrain' from feelings of disgust. The time is ripe for a full, free, and honest discussion and consideration of this question, which affects our standard of citizenship and the well-being of all classes. We are dealing with a problem as old as the human race. We must be actuated solely by an honest desire to promote the welfare of the State. In doing this we shall take no backward step in the cause of true temperance,' but rather advance the cause of true temperance. If the constitution be freed from the prohibitory amendment, which unwisely wrote into our organic law matters of police regulation, the Legislature will be in a position to legislate for conditions that press for consideration, and we may confidently look forward to the enactment of laws which will be. for the best interests of the citizenship of Maine. I trust that you will not be unmindful of their wishes, but as their chosen representatives register their will.” RESULTS OF PREVIOUS POLLS. WHAT THE RECENT VOTE MEANT. :v . MODEL LICENSES PROMISED. The following summary of the position in the State of Maine appears in the “Dunedin Star” : The Prohibition law was first enacted in 1851. In 1856, as a result of an active campaign by the trade, and as a consequence of political and personal feeling, the Prohibitory law. was repealed After one year of License there arose a demand for a return to the Prohibitory law. This was flnci in the year 1858 the people voted as between Prohibition and the License law of 1856, with the following result For Prohibition 28,855 Fbr -License 5,912 , • In 1884, after 26 years’ further experience, the people were asked to vote “Shall the Prohibitory Jaw be embodied in the Constitution of Maine?” ■■■The result, after a total trial of 32 years Prohibition and one year of License, was: For Prohibition ; 70,783 Against Prohibition ... 23,811 On February 28, 1905, in the State Legislature a last effort to obtain a resubmission of the quecaion to the. electors was defeated after a fortnight s spectacular debate by 100 to 29. On June 27, 1906, the Republican State Convention of Maine met in Portland to decide the programme of their party for that year. The question of Prohibition versus Resubmission was. a leading one. On the question being put 1250 delegates supported Prohibition, and about 50 out of 1301 voted for Resubmission. From 1884 to the pivsent day—-a period of 27 years—there lias been no vote on the liquor question in Maine. The reason why Resubmission became possible this year was that in the great turn over at the last November elections Maine, in common with many other States, changed from Republican to Democrat. Neither side in politics claimed to take a definite stand either for or against the Prohibition policy itself, yet the policy of the Democrats was in favor of a periodical resubmission of the question, while that of the Republicans was against resubmission. The vote recently taken was on the Question whether the Prohibition law should be taken out of the .Constitu-

tion, but would not of itself have reestablished License. It requires a twothirds majority either to put matters •into the Constitution or to take them out. Numerous articles in the American Temperance journals showed considerable anxiety as to the result. It was felt that a new generation had grown up since the last vote, and that as these were mostly not familiar with the results alleged to follow on License, it was possible, it was thought, to induce them to vote for a trial of the model license scheme. The fight, then, was not a direct one between License and I'rohibition, but between Local Option and Prohibition, with “model licenses,” and high license fees of £250 to £SOO per license per annum in those places that decided for License at the annual Local Option voting. The two neighboring States, Vermont and New Hampshire, were formerly Prohibition, but both have abandoned it in favor of Local Option and high license. As each American county Oi city .pays its own police, judges, poor 1 rate, ’hospitals, and so on, and has all j these under its own charge, it is very difficult for the State Parliament to ensure enforcement in any place where there happens to be a majority against ■ that policy. In Maine, as in Kansas, several places have for long periods successfully defied the law of the State. This knowledge is freely used in advanc-. ing the claims of Local Option as i against general Prohibition. In Ver- ■ mont last year 219 towns voted “dry > and 27 “wet.” In New Hampshire 198 , towns and 6 cities voted “dry” and 26. > towns and 5 cities voted “wet.” The State vote in ■ each case showed a majority in favor of No License.