The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1874-05-26
Sumptuary Laws.
TO the Editor of the Press:


PORTLAND May 2, 1874.
Having long long been of opinion that tue
legal penalties inflicted for Drunkenness have
not been sufficiently effective, particularly in
cases which have led to brutal assaults on
women as well as men, l have been much
gratfied at finding these apinionS- -cnnfrmed
by the following extract which have taken
from London paper of very high charac-
ter, and which may also have some interest
for your many readers.
''On the assumption, therefore, that laws
directed against drinking are necessity, the
present bilfpromises to be an improvement
on its predecessors. But the fact that after
so many experiments in this direction it can
be asserted as positively, and to all appear
ances as truly, as ever that drunkenness is
one main cause of crime and poverty in Eng
land, raises suspicion whether we have not
from the first been on wrong scent. The
real motive of legislation has been to repress
drunkenness, but, instead of attempting to
do this directly, the law has aimed at doing it
indirectly bv restricting drinking. If this at
tempt had sacceededit might be wise 10 ac-
quiesce in it. But when practice proves
failure it Is allowable to inquire whether the
theory on which it rests can be supported,
terpose at the wrong time and to strike at
the wrong man. Except to the diseased I'M
agination OF a fanatic, there is no more harm
in the act of drinking than in the act of eat
ing. The only difference between The two is,
that though the consequences of over eat
ing are highly injurious, they are not i'm
furious in the same way as the consequences
Of over drinking As then the distinc-
tion between them lies in the re-
SutS Of the natural ponclnSinn iS
that the law should make no distinction be-
tween them until the point Ofexcess has been
passed. Instead of this, the law makes
distinction from the outset, and interferes
with A, who drinks in moderation, because
b is disposed to drink immoderately. This
is the first inconsistency of the existing law.
The second is that it is much too lenient to
certain forms of drunkenness. Drunkenness
has, so to speak, civil side and a
criminal side. The civil side is often exceed
ingly disastrous in its consequences, but these
consequences are not such as the law can take
cogniZance of. Men cannot be punished for
wasting their time or their substance in drink
ing any more than for wasting it on any other
form of pleasure. If the prospect OF starva-
ton or the workhouse does not deter them
from drunkenness, they must be left to make
trial of these alternatives. 1t is different
matter when drunkenness leads, as in many
cases it does lead, to the commission OF crimes
of violence, as when man who is ordinarily
well-disposed takes in drunken fit to beat
ing his wife with the poker or all but muir
ders policeman. This is a matter OF (which
the law can take cognizance, and in doing so
it should bear in mind the reasonable rule
that crimes which are committed with ex-
ceptional facility need to be repressed with
exceptional severity. The deterrIng influence
ought to be increased in proportion to
ho N tho fpmn afi Inf Of
every thousand men say, there are
two who commit violent assaults out
of sheer brutality when they are sober
and eight who commt violent assaults when
they are drunk. The law as at present ad-
mnistered usually lets these eight escape
with a much lighter punishment because they
were drunk. The natural effect OF this illogi-
cal leniency is, that instead of men being
afraid to get drunk lest they should be led on
into crimes of violence, they go on drinking
in the comfortable assurance that, no matter
what violence they may be betrayed into, the
fact that they were drunk will ensure them
trifling sentence. What the law really says
to them is this: You know that if you drink
YOU will very probably assault someone don't
let that deter you-you will not be held re
sponsble for what you do when you are
drunk. What the law ought to say them is
this: You know that if you drink you will
very pIOUdUiy dSSdutJ SoihC OuC, IL huOWlD0
this. you go on drinking, and do commit a
violent assault, you will be punished more Sc
verely than if you had committed it while
sober. A man who, rather than forego an
extra glass, runs the risk of committing muir
der is really more dangerous because far
more common criminal than the man who is
guilty of similar crime under the influence
of rage or greed, and if there is to be any DIFF
ference made between the two it should GER
tainly not be in favor ofhm fromwhom society
has really most to fear. it does not matter
that the man who is a ruffian only when he
is drunk is ordinarily kinder hearted and
better-intentioned person than the man
who is ruffian at all times Laws
are designed not to range natural
dispositions in order of merit. but to produce
abstinence from crime; and so far as drink
enness is more prolific source Of crime than
brutality, it ought to be punished more beay-
lily than brutality. Further, man who has
once been guilty of criminal violence when
drunk becomes saddled for the future with a
graver obligation to remain sober. II be dls-
regards this, and goes on as though drunken
ness were no more likely to lead 10 cilliie ~
him than in man whom il makes merry OF
maudlin, the law may fairly treat MN as
guilty in intention of the offence which he
wil,fnllv rms the risk of committing. Sup
nosino therefore, that two men are brought
nm at 4 nolice-court charged with being drunk
and disorderly, and it is found that against