The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1880-08-04
The Complaints Against Governor
Davis.

Some of the friends of the prohibitory
cause are by their unwisdom putting in seri-
GUS peril the good work they profess to have
at heart. The unreasonable complaints they
are preferring against Governor Davis. their
violent denunciations of men whose LOYALTY
to temperance is as strong as their own and
whose services to it have been as valuable.
and their threats of independent political
action only serve to embarrass the authori-
ties engaged in enforcing the law, and to
divide the party whose creation the law is
and whose work is the great mass of pro-
hibitory legislation upon our statute book.
These men ought to learn from the glee
with which the opposition papers greet
their grumblings and menaces that the ene-
mics of temperance legislation are hoping
to profit by Republican dissensions, and
cherish the belief that with the friends of
prohibition divided they can succeed in doing
away with it. The PRESS, which has always
been an advocate of temperance legislation,
strongly deprecates these unreasonable and
untimely complaints.
just how unreasonable their complaints
against Governor Davis are will be seen by
perusal of the following article from the
Lewiston Journal, written by its editor, ex-
Gov. Dingley, one of the ablest, most ardent
and most faithful prohibitionists in the
State, man whose loyalty to the cause of
temperance has never been questioned, and
whose services in its behalf have been of the
highest value:
The complaints made against Gov Davis at
the recent state temperance convention were
that In Kennebec he had not appointed the
constable that the Gardiner petitioners asked
for, but another man; and that in Penobscot
he had delayed the appointment, and then ap-
pointed only one where more were needed;
and that these facts showed he did not intend
to do his duty. The reply to the charges, was
that he had not appointed the man asked for
in kennebec because he believed, he claimed
that he had secured better man; that he had
appointed the man asked for in Waldo; and in
the other county (PenobscoD the delay was oc-
casioned by the fact that the petition came in
just as he was leaving for Chicago, and that
he promptly nominated man after he re-
tured, who declined, when he nominated an
other who has accepted Furthermore it was
stated, that he would appoint another man at
the next meeting of the council, and intended
to do his full duty in this respect.
On this showing, it was reasonably urged
that any attempt to pronounce Gov. Davis un-
faithful to his duty would be premature, un-
just and unwise. We would be the last to
refrain from uniting in such a verdict where
events had clearly shown it to be deserved.
There can be no ground for complaint in
counties where no petitions have been pre-
sented, because the governor has no iurisdic-
tion until then. There is, it seems, no COM
plaint among temperance men in Waldo that
the governors action is not satisfactory; and
in Kennebec it is conceded that the man ap-
pointed is a goodlofficer. The main ground
OF complaint is in Penobscot. But if the gov
ernor appoints another constable at the next
session Of the council, and subsequently, if it
appears more are needed, appoints them, what
reasonable ground of complaint exists-es-
pecially when on every occasion he avows his
purpose to do his duty faithfully in this re-
spect?