Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1870-07-02
TWO SIDES TO "A PICTURE.
Maine Standard favors Prohibition and
State Police!

In Feb. 1869, about the time temper
ance State Convention was to be held N
this city, the Maine Standard took great
interest in the cause of temperance, and
expressed great deal of yirtuous indig-
nation because the State Constabulary was
repealed. In an article at that time it
testified to the benefits of the State Police,
going farther than most republicans did
in praises of it. 1t said:
"No candid man piN deny that the law
against tIae sale OF intOxic:at-
ing liUlzOrs WINS enforced with
far greater efficiency ANA eff
feet under the cOnstsa bIiEary
law than il ever was b. fore Or
since. The result was that the rum wing
of the party became restless and turbulent.
The law and fts enforcement
was interfering with the hsssi-
ness OF radical RUINS elsers.
and mssl.in {: difficult the graf
ffcatiOn OF thr aDDetitss OF
radical rlIInlirfrlRlers, and the CON
sequence was that enough of them boted the
party nominations, or stayed away from the
polls to reduce the usual radical majority to
such an extent as to alarm the political lead
ers."
And the course of the Standard up to
the time of the republican State conven-
ton agreed with the above extract from
its columns. 1t was alittle AHEAD OF
ANY REPUBLICAN, PAPER IN THE
STATE in FAVOR OF PROHIBITION
until Mr.. Perham was nominated, when
presto. what change!
Pronounces Prohibition a Failure!
In the last number of that paper we see
that the Standard is not the Standard of
1869. that whereas it was then the STAND
ARD or THE STATE Police, now
it is the STA aDARD OF THE "RUM
GUZZLERS" and pronounces Prohibition
"A failure. For the proof of this woiul
turnover we call attention to the follow
ing from the last issue:
1T is some tweniy-one years since the pro-
hibition legislation first tried in this State.
and as one law after another EsAs
failed Ia ssccOHnsS.ists the dc.
sirs-I results, others have heen
enacted and new teeth Incorporated year after
year, and still intemperance prevails nearly
as much as ever, and the disciples of force
are as dissatisfied and as claInorous as ever
for greater stringency and more teeth
Have the fruits of prohibitory laws been
SUCH heretofore, as 10 warrant the belief that
the evils of intemperance can be overcome
by laws however stringent, and however rig
idly enforced? Can ~ single IEs-
stance be pointed 0ui In fAe
state where an individual Has
been saved from ~ life of inteBsl-
perance by these laws! Is there
single man in the State now who is prevent
ed from drinking by his being unable to OBJ
tain liquors on account Of these lawsy Thou
sands upon thousands have BEEN saved through
the influence of temperance organizations and
true temperance efforts, but where is the man
who has been saved by force of laws.
Why this change at this time we leave
the Standard to explain. After contend
ing for State Police SO long, and de-
nouncing the "rum guzzlers" Gas it calls
them), its unkiBd remarks about the
Chairman of the State Temperance Com
mittee, and its change against Prohibition
need explanation. That there can be no
mistake about the condition Of the Stand
ard, is shown by the following remarks of
its editor:
Mr.. PiiIsbury Wants no more ssTeeth ~
After urging State Police and more
..tee,hn in the law, for the past two years,
here is what Mr.. Pillsbury has come to as
we find him reported in the Argus ac-
count of the democratic State convention.
OF prohibition he says:
lin his judgment it was destructive