The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1881-02-16
Providence Journal.l
Prohibition in Maine.

The prohibitory law of Maine is a very strin-
gent one. The Governor has by law authority
over certain officials elected by the people, con-
sidered by some of the friends of temperance
as equally anomalous and dangerous. If en-
forced as it now stands upon the statute book,
the law is competent to ruin financially any
man who should persist in its violation. The
sentiment of the State is in favor of consti-
tutional and reasonable prohibitory law So
mucn is beyond any rational disputation. But
there are those in Maine, it seems, who are not
satisfied, but who propose alterat ons in the di
rection of greater restrictions upon the free
dom of the citizen. Mr.. Neal Dow, adyocat-
ing more and stringent repressive measures,
declares that there are in the city of Portland
lone hundred and thirty low, dirty, secret
rum and beer shops" The population of Port
land is, in round numbers, thirty thousand, or,
say, one to every two hundred and thirty in
habitants. This would give Providence about
four hundred and fifty places of the same kind
under like circumstances, if like causes pro-
duce like effects.
But there is another and very familiar as
pect OF the case. There are in Portland ac-
cording to the PRESS, which is in favor of
temperance legislation, sixty or seventy "club
rooms That is to say, one, putting them at
the lowest figures to every five hundred in
habitants, or one to every hundred voters.
These club rooms, says the PRESS, ''are a nurs-
cry of dissoluteness." To what portion of the
population do they appeal for support? As
everybody knows, in the main to the young
men, who find in their seciusion and soci-
ality, temptations not elsewhere offered, and
hard to be resisted. These club rooms have
come into existence because of prohibitory
legislation" How baleful thew ara in their
influence upon the young, and even upon the
mature, need not be argued before those who
have either studied the subject pbilosophically
or obtained knowledge of it by intelligent
and candid observation.
Whatever may be ones theory az TO- or how
ever strong the argument in favor of prohiDi-
tion, the fact is declared by Neal Dow that
prohlbitlon does not prohibit in Portland, not
withstanding the law has from year to year
imposed greater penalties upon the rumseller
and concentrated executive power more and
more in the hands of the State authorities
Further legislation is asked for. Just what is
proposed we are not informed but the prohibi-
tory clauses and the penalties are required to
be made more stringent" This is protested
against as prejudicial to the temperance cause.
by several stannch temperance newspapers In
other words, there is a division in the ranks of
sincere temperance people in Maine, both as
10 the advantage OF the present law, and in
stlll greater degree as to the wisdom or justice
OF still larger restrictions and severer punish
ments.
All OF which goes to show as did the recent
discussion in Boston, that the question as to
now best the great evil of intemperance can be
dealt with, is still an open one. Nor is it for q
citizen of Rhode Island to forget that our Su-
preme Court has just now decided one provision
OF our own liquor law to be unconstitutional
Nor, indeed. should he, if he is called in any
way to act upon this subject, ignore the expe-
rlence OF TINS State in the overthrow, as un-
constitutional, of a prohibitory law modelled
largely after the Maine pattern, to the i'm
mense detriment of temperance, and a great
cost to the State. He is neither a sensible
philanthropist nor wise statesman who re-
fuses to perceive and to acknowledge the limi-
tatlons OF the law, the rights of the citizen, the
teachings OF experience and the nature of men.
This question is not settled In Rhode Is
land, for the last thirty years. it has legislative
~ assumed every phase Of which it is capable.
License, local option, prohibition and in Ger
tain places at certain times the free sale with
impunity, of liquor under each and every con-
dition OF the law. The evil of intemperance is
acknowledged. The agitation of the question
as to how it shall be in the greatest degree lin
ited is one to be encouraged. But If any good
Is TO be done, the issue must be approached
with the admission that people may honestly
differ as to means, and still be friends of tenn
perance. Important as is this matter, and its
gravity is almost beyond exaggeration, it does
not conclude, and will not in the long run be
allowed to set aside other considerations of un-
| lversal consequence. There are rights of the
individuals which the courts say must not be
taken away even in the cause of prohibition
| We are not discussing the subject in its fulness
| oy any means; that which we suggest is that so
serious topic should be treated with ntelli-
gence and respect for intelligent and honest
differences of opinion