OCR Text |
Show 't fv. 1 I B,ICB- The L. A. Clark-Orville Gun-ther Gun-ther controversy which originated in this column relative to a better "drunken driving" law in Utah has stimulated some interesting reactions. re-actions. Following Mr. Gunther's answer to Mr. Clark, in which Mr. Gun-ther Gun-ther expressed interest in a more adequate statute, a questionaire was mailed to holdover State Senators Sen-ators Luke Clegg, Provo; Grant Thorne, Springville and the following follow-ing candidates for' election to the Utah House of Representatives: Howard R. Hint on, Lehi; C. Wil-ford Wil-ford Larsen, Orem; T. C. Hebert-son, Hebert-son, Vineyard; N. Halvor Madsen, Provo; George E. Collard, Provo; Odessa Cullimore, Provo; LeRoy Tingey, Springville; Bernell J. Hansen, Spanish Fork; Earl L. Page, Payson; Allen L. Hodgson, Payson, and Mr. Gunther, Lehi. Replies were received from all of these except Candidate Earl J. Page; who apparently ignored the questionaire or did not regard it of sufficient importance to merit consideration. con-sideration. The questionaire asked that the Senators and Candidates answer "Yes" or "No" to the following questions: 1. Do you consider that drunken driving is of sufficient importance as to merit serious consideration in the coming session of the Utah Legislature? 2. Do you consider that the present pres-ent Utah dinnken driving law is adequate? 3. Do you believe that arrested drivers suspected of drinking be required to submit to a blood test in order to establish their innocence inno-cence or guilt? 4. Do you believe that refusal to submit to such a test be regarded re-garded as evidence of guilt? 5. Do you believe that the weak link in prosecuting drunken drivers driv-ers in Utah is the laxity of the courts ? 6. Do you believe that evidence secured by blood tests would appreciably ap-preciably strengthen the position of the courts? 7. Will you, if elected, individu ally or jointly with others, initiate and support a law which requires arrested drivers suspected of drinking drink-ing to submit to a blood test, or be legally regarded as guilty? Practically all of the replies received re-ceived answered questions 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 with a "Yes" and question 2, dealing with the adequacy ade-quacy of the present law, with a "No." All of this was most gratifying. grati-fying. The exceptions were the answers an-swers of Howard R. Hinton, Lehi and Allen L. Hodgson, Payson. Both of these candidates are lawyers; law-yers; and were concerned regarding regard-ing the "submit to a blood test or be regarded as guilty" part of the questionaire. Mr. Gunther and Senator Thorne expressed similar concern. The contention was, that evidence of guilt secured by a refusal re-fusal would be unconstitutional, since it would in effect, force an arrested person to testify to his own guilt. Apprehension was also expressed regarding the personal liberty of the drunken driver. A footnote to the questionaire returned by Senator Luke Clegg was most interesting in this connection. con-nection. Said he, "I introduced a Bill in the last session of the Legislature Leg-islature to require such a test for drunken driving. The lawyers in the Senate ganged up on me and it was defeated. I had very little help." So, it would seem to this writer, that the hope of passing an adequate ade-quate open and shut law for dealing deal-ing with drunken drivers in Utah lies in our willingness to mobilize sufficient public opinion to beat down organized opposition. As is too often the case, legislation of urgent need and vital public benefit bene-fit fails to become law due to the active opposition of selfish minorities. minor-ities. After all, the personal right of law-abiding citizens to travel Utah's highways in safety, far outweighs out-weighs the right of drunken drivers driv-ers to with-hold a few drops of blood. Think it over, dear friends, and make your honest convictions known. So long 'til Thursday. |