Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1882-04-25


of business, therefore, he went to work ir
practical way. Though . Temperance
man. he evinced good, sound sense ir
bis administration. or course, the ex.
tremists were enraged and determined
to defeat him. But he was reelected
by decided majority over his competi
tors, and in 1880 the poor expenses o
Augusta fell from 81, Alb SO to S., $685. 10
Vickery had victory, and the gooe
sense of the majority of the citizens O.
Augusta triumphed.
Your readers will be struck by exam
lining the criminal record of Lewiston
for 1880. Out of 242 arrests we find
Intoxicatlon and disturbance, So; anG
OF offences apparently arising from too
much drink-assault and battery, 40
assault on officers, 4; fast driving. g.
while of offences against the liquor
laws there are-liquor nuisance. 2
search and seizure, 36; single sale. 10
transporting liquor, 6. Here, after thir'
ty years of prohibition, there are 121
Gust one half OF the arrests made by
the City Marshal attributable to whis,
key. 1t was explained to me that the
during the war, but was begun again in
1872 Very well. That was the begin
ming of general NOV ement that went
over the State the following year. In
1873 the poor expenses of Lewiston
were So, ,022 40, or 81 cents per capita.
The raid against whiskey sellers was
conducted with vigor, the arrests fol
drunkenness at one time going as high
as 300, or over 2 per cent of the popula-
ton, and the poor expenses went to
SIS $3.50 81. The spasmodic force expired
the arrests went down yearly to 1881,
and then. to SO, and in 1880 the poor
expenses fell to $12, 12S So net, or 81 cents
per head.
Now, how can Mr.. Dow and the rest
claim that the law has diminished pau
perism, when pauperism is only dimin-
ished where the law is not enforced,
and rises when the officers of the law
are active? And how is it that the per-
centage of drunkenness, as told by the
arrests, is greater in those cities OF
Maine than in municipalities of like
population in other States am aware
that no law is entirely obeyed, and even
under absolute prohibition of making
and selling, we should expect some
drunkenness. But unless the law be a
fraud or delusion, the drunkenness
should be at Q minimum, and its per-
centage less than in other communities.
Nor will it do to sly that arrests are
made more readily in Maine than else
where, for such an assertion would be
utterly untrue. The same rule-bar-
ring an occasional spirit of ofiiciousness
prevails everywhere. So long as the
drunkard can get along without dis
turbing his neighbors, or making too
scandalous exhibition of himself, he is
allowed to meander his way in peace,
whether in Portland or New York. II
is only when his load of whiskey is 90
heavy that he utters complaints Of the
weight, or falls beneath the burden
or disturbs the public peace. that the
ease-loving policeman claims him as q
victim of law.
SURPRISING INCREASE OF CRIME.
That the law has not diminished
crime in Maine is shown by the record.
In 1851, when prohibition first came on
the statute book, the State prison had
81 inmates, of whom S were there for
homicide, for murderous assaults,
for arson. and for rape. In 1880 the
State prison had 267 in its happy family
-26 for homicide, I for murderous as
saults, 9 for arson, Is for rape and at
tempt, A for felonious assaults, 4 for rob
berry, and for piracy. The increase Of
all crimes was POI per cent; of the
higher grades, 307 per cent; while the
increase of population from 1850 to 1886
was only 11.27 per cent. And if any
one reads the report of the Attorney
General for 1880, he will see the crimi.
nal business of the courts, and get an
instructive lesson.
But the matter does not stop here.
The claim is made that Maine, by the
enactment of her prohibitory law, has
added to the material growth and pros
perity of her people; and Mr.. Blaine,
in his speech in 1880, says, and Mr.
Dow endorses the statement by his quo.
tation, "There is no State in the Union
that has prospered 80 much as Maine
has during the last twenty years." Ex-
Gov. Dingley follows in the same track
in his not particularly ingenious at
tempt to show that the amount of tax
paid on the manufacture of liquor is an
evidence of the amount of sale, and un-
dertakes to compare Maine with New
Jersey, the two States, as he says, in
bold defiance of the census enumera
ton, having "about the same popula.
tion." "About" is good. In 1880 Maine
had GAS, 1886 people, and New JERSEY
1,131, ,116, or nearly double. We do moi
like New Jersey much, here, but in this
matter am disposed to do her justice
COMPARING MAINE WITH NEW JERSEY
Let us begin with population first
In 1900, when Maine was district, che
had only Isl, ,719 Inhabitants and New
Jersey 183, 1858. In half century she
had passed New Jersey, for in 1851
Maine had 583, 159 people and New Jer
sey only 489, ,555. In 1851 prohibition
began its work. In the thirty years
from 1850 to 1880, Maine only increased
her population 11.27 per cent, while
New Jersey advanced hers over 131 Del
cent. Maine lost some by migration
but very little more than New Jersey
In 1870 there were just 4O5 more natives
of Maine living outside of her bounds
than there were natives of New JERSEY
out of her territory. How many there
are now we have as yet no means o.
knowing, but certainly not enough ts
account for the lack of comparative in.
crease; nor has foreign migration built
New Jersey. There are 9O9, 1893 natives
there, to 598, ,076 in Maine, as shown by 8
recent census bulletin.
AS the census of 1880 is not published
except in a few inconsiderabIe bulletins
and none of them being out when Mr.
Blaine spoke, that orator must have
based his opinion on the growth shown
In prosperity from 1850 to 1870, with thu
presumption that the last decade mus1
have been continuation of the first
In that case he has had very untrust
worthy secondhand information, since
the record does not justify his boast.
Maine had twice as much cultivated
ground in 1880 as New Jersey, on whicl
she produced to the value of $14 % pel
acre, while the value of New jersey
production was $27 54. The production
of the mines and quarries of Maine was
less than one tenth that of New Jersey
She had not then nor has she now util.
lied her sands in the production O
glass, which adds so much to the mate
rial prosperity of New Jersey. Sh,
made trIf1e by plundering her soil of its
timber, robbing Peter to pay Paul. Ir
twenty years the manufactures of Main,
her strongest point-had increased
forty four millions of dollars; but those
of New Jersey one hundred millions
The few bulletins thus far show tha
Maine has not had greater compare.
tive increase in the last decade, as fa]
as heard from. For her cotton manu-.
factories, where she, from her unriv