The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1867-05-11
DAILY PRESS.
PORTLAND.
Saturday Mining, May IL, 1867.
The Proposed Change in the Liquer Inv.

tions bearing upon the amendments to the
Liquor Law which are to be submitted to a
vote of the people of the State ON the sd OF
June; and which, if adopted, go into practical
effect on the 1st day of July. These commu-
nications nearly all seem to be based on the
idea that if the vote to be taken is in the mega
tive, ace shall haze no restrictive iaic, and that
the Hood gates of intemperance will be left
| wide open. A communication ON the LIST page
| yesterday, written by most amiable and
worthy lady correspondent, seems to assume
that the law now in force is a law for the ben
| eft of the rum-seller. How else can we ex-
| plain such language as this: "Plcase allow a
woman who has been robbed of rich in
"heritance by the Free Liquor Law to speak"
| SC. Or this: Suppose that all who have been
"robbed of their patrimony by this State Lao
SHOULD come up and claim the principal and
INTEREST," would the fourteen millions of acres
"of unbroken forest cancel the debt?" Or
this sentence, after truthfully painting the
| evils of intemperance: "Who are responsible
'for these deep sorrows? The trainers Of our
| 'liquor laws and the men who vote to sustain
"them. ** Can any man who regards
"the well being of our race, deliberately vote
against law that designs to close the ave-
| 'nues to ruin and death?" This language GER
tainly implies that our existing law is not on
| the side of temperance, and that the vote
| in June needs to be in the affirmative in Or
| der that we may have pains and penalties for
the unlawful vending of intoxicating drinks.
Another communication, as yet unpublished,
| referring to the vote on the Sd of june, says:
IT, 4 ~
| ''ishment Of the rumseller shall be imprison-
"ment for few weeks or "a pdtt'y sum which
che can easily pay by increasing the price of
| "his drinks" This writer is evidently not
| posted in relation to the penalties which the
existing law imposes.
A short time since correspondent of this
| paper copied from the Bath Times to the effect
that the issue on the Sd of June was to be be-
| tween Prohibition and Free Rum" thus say
| ing, by necessary impG cation, that the present
law is neither prohibitive nor in opposition to
the free sale of Intoxicating liquors We have
before an official appeal to the voters of the
State, in which the same thing is very nearly
implied. After admitting the great amount of
good accomplished by the existing law, the ap-
| peal in question refers to the Importance of the
amendments to be voted ON in June, and says !:
| If rejected, the election will be construed,
| not only in distant States and foreign countries
| but in every bar-room in Maine, as the over
| throw of Prohibition. The rumseller will be
| encouraged; the officer disheartea and the law,
| as it nOD stands aoiH be dead letter The ques-
ton, therefore, is virtually between Free Rum
| and Prohibition. .-..I ..
If the amendments should be rejected
which is very improbable-who will be respon-
sible for thus virtually overthrowing Prohibi-
| ton if not those Jealous friends who have
| forced the new issue upon the people? Vein
| sist that we now have stringent law-Ueyy
| stringent-intensely SO, and if the amendments
should fail, the same law we now have will
remain to us; law more stringent, more Sc
we're in its penalties, probably, than any simi-
| lar statute to be found in the Union. We trust,
therefore, whatever may be the fate of the
amendments, that the law will not be given up
or cast aside as worthless, but let it be wisely,
firmly and inpartially enforced, and if the peo-
pie will not bear such enforcement their rem
edy is in sending men to the Legislature who
will modify or repeal it. The existing law may
be improved by the adoption of the proposed
amendments; we say mag be, for those amend
ments cover new and untrod ground, and
therefore, until tried, must be regarded as
somewhat experimental. To show what kind
of law we already have, and how severe in its
! penalties, We copy few sentences Section
| 1sG provides that "no person shall be allowed,
"at any time, to sell, by himself, his clerk, SER
want OF agent, directly or indirectly, any in
"toxicating liquors." except when licensed as
an agent of the town to sell for medicinal and
mechanical purposes. Such is the provision"
of the law, and the seventh section reads as
follows: f .aa
Sec.7 If any person, by himself, clerk, ser
want or agent, snail at any time sell any intox-
icating liquors in violation of the provisions OF
| this act, he shall forfeit and pay on the first
conviction ten dollars and the costs OF prose-
cution, and shall stand committed until the
same be paid; ON the second conviction he shall
pay twenty dollars and the costs OF prosecu-
Ilon, and shall stand committed until the same
be paid; on the third and every subsequent
conviction, he shall pay twenty dollars and the
costs of prosecution, and shall be imprisoned in
the county jail three months, and in default o.
| the payment. of the fines and costs prescribed
by this section for the first and second convic
tions, the convict shall not be entitled to ths
benefit of chapter 1856 of the revised statutes
until he shall have been imprisoned two
months; and in default OF payment of fines
and costs provided for the third and every sab
sequent conviction, he shall not be entitled t.
the benefit OF said chapter of said statute until
he shall have been imprisoned four months.-
And if any clerk, servant or agent or other
person in the employment or on the premises ol
another, shall violate the provisions of this Sec
ton, or aid and assist therein, he shall be held
equally guilty with the principal, and, ON con.
viction shall suffer like penalty.
Chapter 135 of the revised statutes, referred
to in the above section, provides that poor con
victs, unable to pay their fines, may be releas
ed from imprisonment giving their not
and schedule of their property, the note to b
| lien on real estate.
| So far as this section is concerned, th,
amendments to be voted on in June do no
propose to change it at all, only to add to it
other provisions, for the first conviction thirty
days Imprisonment in Jail, and for the second
conviction sixty days. For the third and al
subsequent offences the present law IL deemed
sufficiently severe, and no additional penalty
is proposed. "
The judicial decisions have declared per
son to be Common seller" on evidence o
three illegal sales, though these sales may b.
all on the same day Or on different days, o.
even one sale, with other suspicious circum
stances, may constitute evidence of a common
seller; and section Sth of the present law pro
vides, that for common seller, first conviction
the penalty shall be 800 fine and costs o
prosecution, and in default of payment sixt.
days in county Jail For second conviction
$500 fine and costs OF prosecution, and in de
fault of payment four msrtbs Imprisonment
For third, and all Subsequent convictions, 500
fine and costs of prosecution, and four aonth
imprisonment, and in default of payment o
fine and costs four additional months impris
onment. +ttr.
The proposed amendments do not chang
these penalties, but simply add thereto, on frs
conviction three months imprisonment, an'
on second conviction four months, and for al
subsequent convictions the present law l
deemed amply severe, and no increased sever
ity is proposed.
Section 10th of the law as it now stands dc
fines keeping drinking house and tippln
SHOP" to be the act of selling 'in any build
sing, vessel or boat, in the State, contrary I
'law," and the penalty imposed is, fine
$100 and costs of prosecution, and in defau
of payment, three months Imprisonment,
In the proposed amendments to be submit
ted to the people in June, this definition al
penalty remain unchanged; but there is adde
to the penalty, on the first conviction imprison
ment for three months, and on subsequen
convictions imprisonment for SIX months'
1t will be seen that the present. law, whlci
l