The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1875-07-10

10 Inc decision OF Judge Knight OF the Mu-
isseipal Court was of course not unantlci-
pased, and the matter goes to a higher
tribunal The appeal takes it to the Superior
CourI, to be tried at the next September
term.
We do not purpose to add anything to the
arguments made before the Court; for the
matter can safely rest until it reaches a final
decision. 1t is unfortunate that the friends
OF the Mayor, instead of bringing their test
suit in manner so that the Law Court
which meets this month could decide it, have
so proceeded that it cannot reach another
tribunal until two months more.
Judge Knights opinion indicates that his
attention has not been called to some parts
of the Liquor Law. He regards it as clear
that the place of AGENTS. an office. Sections
81, SO and "a of that statute are well worth
tie study of those who think they know
what it means better than the people who
wrote it. In the fifty-second section the Ian
guage used to describe the agent is
'.person authorized as aforesaid to SELL"
etc. In section fifty-three the language
is that "the aldermen shall give motto
to all persons authorized to sell In.
toTicating liquors. of persons of Incorporate
habits; and section ffty-four says 'Any per-
son authorized as aforesaid who shall
violate" the law shall be punished, etc,
and further on, .''Whenever any conviction
shall be obtained, all the duthority of such
person to sell Intoxicating liquors shall be
oacated." All this is singular language to
use about subordinate city officer. The
next clause in the same section, in the light
of Judge Knights opinion, is more singular
still: 'And it shall be the duty of the alder
men Ono mention of the Mayor to reuoke
such authority whenever they shall be salts
fed OF any violation of the same" What
other statute, from Maine to Texas, can be
found which says "revoke such authority
when it means remove from Office? Then,
again, the same clause says that the 'talder-
men"-the Mayor having nothing to do with
it-shaU reuoke such authority. If the law
which the prosecution invokes says that the
Mayor shall appoint, it also says he may re-
move. But the liquor law says otherwise,
and declares that the "aldermen" shall
remove, thus degrading" that superior
authority"-the Mayor-by leaving him out
in the cold entirely, without even casting
vote. The fact IS that the law in question
refers to charter officers, and not to "persons
authorized to sell liquors." The liquor
statute is system by itself, and the agent is
no nrn n Cffiadr Of ho oit ha ic
authorized to sell the citys liquor than he
would be if he was licensed to sell his own.
The thing to be censured in this matter is
the purpose by which the prosecutors are
actuated. They are not interested in the
superior authority" of the Mayor, or in
the Surprisingly delicate duty" as Judge
Knight touchingly calls it, of the liquor agent.
but in keeping the agency from being opened.
Having no scruples about the violation of the
law themselves, they desire to prevent law
abiding citizens, who in their business re-
quire liquors for lawful purposes, from
obtaining it in lawful way. If Mr.. Weeks
is gully of violating the law in this instance,
he has violated it continually the whole previ-
Gus year. During all that time the Superior
authority of the Mayor has run to waste,
and the Surprisingly delicate duty" of the
agency has been entrusted to unhallowed
hands, but no patriot looking out for the
dignity of the Mayor, or anxious that liquors
should flow through unpolluted channels.
has ever yet been moved 10 make complaint.
The action in this case is of course partisan
one. What the Democracy can make out of
it, however, it is hard to understand. If it
discommodes good citizens, they can hardly
fail to see who does il. If the city loses
money and undergoes risk, the people will
remember who caused it. Those who for
sinister purposes endeavor to embroil COM
munity seldom make much out of it-seldom
find favor with lovers of decency and good
order