The Portland daily press., 1872-04-01
THE PRESS,
MONDAY MORNING, APRIL 1, 1879.
Chapter Twenty-Seven.

Chapter twenty-seven of the Revised Stat
utes of 1871, fortified by the legislation of
1872. is a monument to the conscientious eff
forts that have been made for long series of
years, to correct an abnormal but apparently
irresistible tendency of mankind. The orig
inal law of 1858, which is now the basis of
the "Maine law" of our statutes. has been so
overlaid by subsequent legislation, and so en-
larged and strengthened at every point that
its nearest friends would hardly recognize it.
AS modified by the legislation of the last four
teen years it constitutes what is probably the
most stringent prohibitory code that has yet
been adopted by any people on the face of the
globe. 1t is the purpose Of this article mere
ly to give the reader an idea of its provisions,
without criticism or comment of any kind.
Before the law of 1872 was passed, any per-
son might manufacture cider or wine from
native fruits without mourning any legal PEN
atty whatever. But by the law of 1872 the
permission to manufacture wine is with
drawn. Is is now unlawful in Maine to
manufacture anything except cider, that is
ever classified with Intoxicating beverages.
The provisions in regard to the sale of Ii
quors are still more stringent. Up to last Sat-
urday cider and native wines might be sold by
any person. Now the maker of cider may
sell it, either by wholesale or retail, but no
other person may do SO, while the sale of all
wines is absolutely forbidden.
The penalties for ignoring this general pro-
hibition are most severe. For single sale
the offender is fined $50, or he mag be sent
to Jail for thirty days, and for the second of
fence he must go to Jail for sixty days and pay
a fine of twenty dollars besides. For the third
offence the penalty is $40 and ninety days in
Jail. And lest the law should fail in its eff
cheney through the statute which provides
that poor convicts who are detained solely on
account of their inability to pay fine or
costs, may be released after thirty days, spec
ial provision is made for liquor cases in this
particular, and the period of incarceration in
default of payment is, in these cases, from
two to four months, according to the gravity
of the offence. 4ai
The penalties for being common seller are
still more severe A fine of hundred dol
lars and costs, or three months Imprisonment
is the lightest punishment for this crime, while
for the second and every subsequent offence a
fine of 5000 and costs and imprisonment for
four months are prescribed. For keeping
clearinghouse and tippling-shop the punish
ments are the same as in the previous case,
except that after the first offence imprison-
ment for sic months is provided in addition to
the fine of 500 and costs.
Finally comes the nuisance act" chapter
seventeen of the Revised Statutes, which, if
inforced, would seem to be the most formida-
BILE weapon in the prohibitory armory. This
act regards the keeping of place for the sale
and houses of ill-fame, as a nuisance. The
keeper of such place risks thousand dol
lars fine and years Imprisonment, and at
the same time forfeits his lease. More
over the person who knowingly leases any
tenement for the forbidden purpose may be
fined from 500 to $1,000, or imprisonment at
least three months and at most one year. The
penalties for this and the previously mention
ed offences have not been changed since the
revision of the statutes.
The law ''favors'' the seizure of intoxicat-
ing liquors. Since 1870 an officer may seize
them without a warrant, and may hold them
till reasonable time for procuring one has
elapsed; and warrant for search may by is
sued on the complaint of one person. The
arrest of the person keeping the liquors which
ara caizad Uac cninp,apdad hu tho Iow IF
1858, but an act passed by the Legislature of
1872 guards against common evasion of the
law by directing the arrest of any person who
is believed to have concealed Intoxicating Ii
quors, intended for unlawful sale, about his
''or her. (says the las Legislature) person.
The law guards very carefully against fail
ure to initiate proceedings against those who
violate its provioions. The Legislature
which adjourned on the Goth of February,
1872, passed law which made it the duty of
the sheriffs of the several counties to complain
to magistrates, of unlawful sales or to furnish
thecounty attorneys with such evidence as viii
lead to the conviction of the offenders. The
Legislature of 1870, having in view similar
purpose to ensure the prosecution of Often
ders, made it the duty of municipal officers to
institute proceedings against them. A penal
ty of not less than $40 nor more than $50 is
provided for any municipal officer who neg
lects to complain of liquor-seller when noti-
fled in writing by two persons that an offence
has been committed.
Lest the prohibitory code should be shorn
of all its terrors by the Partially or prejudice
of those to whom its execution is committed,
the Revised Statutes make the following pro-
visions which, SO far as liquor cases are con-
cerned, limit that discretionary power which
they are permitted to exercise in the prosecu-
ton of other criminal offenses: The County
prosequi after a suit has been commenced
Liquors seized under this act may not be re-
covered by replevin suit. To prevent the
fixing of the penal sum of recognizances in
liquor cases too low the law commands that
they shall be fixed at specific rate-from
5000 to $500. No part Of the penalty if a
principals recognizance may be RENTED and
that of a surety may not be RENTED ON sur
render of a principal who has incurred for
fixture. When an offender has been convict
ed the attorney for the State cannot, except
for good reason, continue the case for sem
tence, and single term is the longest delay
that is on any account, permitted. All infor-
malities in indictments may be remedied
without delay, and no person engaged in the
liquor business is permitted to sit on jury
which is to try offences against the prohibi-
tory code. nrs
In order that no difficulty may arise in
proving that a sale has been made, through
the articles of the criminals, it is declared by
the statute that a delivery of intoxicating IL
quors should be regarded as sufficient evidence
of sale.
The ends of justice having been often de-
feated through the uncertainty which may
exist in regard to the real offender against
the prohibitory law, it is provided that a
member of a firm shall be responsible for
the acts of his copartner and that an agent or
servant is equally liable with his principal
Liquor agents appointed by the municipal
officers of towns are punishable if they know
ingly sell to persons, like minors, drunkards
&C., who ought not to buy. A town agent
for the sale OF intoxicating liquors, who has
been convicted of illegal sales, is made by a
law of the last Legislature, ineligible for reap
pointment By law of the same year
it is discretionary with the municipal officers
whether they will APPOINT any liquor agent or
in oil 10 Of ms rfc in fI,a hon