The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1882-09-11
SHERIFF SAWYER.
The Statements of His Latest Circular
Disproved.

Sheriff Sawyer has issued a circular in which
he claims that under his administration the in-
come from liquor fees and fines has, up to the
September term of court, been $28, 40 81, ana
further says that the income from the Septem-
Der term of court will be about S15,0OO, ana
that the increase over the Dresser administra-
ton is 1915 OOO
The statement is in the main true, but the
inference suggested entirely false. The sum
he mentions has been collected,-but through
no effort made by him and his deputies. While
these men have been drawing their two dol
lars day and doing nothing to earn their sal
aries while they have been neglectipg the ou-
ties they were under oath to discharge, the po-
lice of Portland have been making the selzuie %
and suppressing the liquor traffic What does
the record show? Daring the year 1857 the
sheriff and his men made seven cases. The
city marshal of Portland and his deputies 122
cases. The sheriff did almost nothing. The
marshal almost everything. Yet the sheriff has
the enormous impudence to claim credit for
the fines imposed BY court, hardly dime OF
which he succeeded in securing.
Furthermore many thousands of dollars he
reckons to his account came from seizures
made by Sheriff Dresser in the last year of his
term. Those convicted in the lower court APP
pealed and the cases were not finally determin-
ed and the fines paid until Sawyer was in Of
fee. These fines are claimed by Sawyer. He
had nothing to do with the seizures or the
fines. The seizures were made before he came
into Office With the matter of fines the court
alone dealt.
Again, during the greater portion of Sheriff
Dresser's term the fine was $50. During all Of
Sawyers it has been $780, So the same num-
Der of seizures yield double the income. But
this is due to the Legislature, not to the Sher-
If.
Mr. Sawyer's circular entirely misrepresents
the matter. Whence does the increase OF
which he boasts come? His deputies have
made no seizures. Where then has all this
revenue come from? We answer, from the
efforts of the City Marshal and his force. Not
oue-tenth of the receipts charged by him has
Sheriff Sawyer's force been directly or lndl-
rectly responsible for, (when bis force, false to
their official oath, neglected their duty, the
CITY Marshal took hold of the law and en-
forced it) and no one knows this better than
Sheriff Sawyer, and it is by these false pre-
lenses that he is endeayoring to gain re-elec-
ton.
He has systematically and wholly neglected
his duties in enforcing the liquor law and now
seeks reelection on the strength OF work
done by others. Can anything be more dis
honorable and unfair; Sawyer's deputies have
40 h,,%. in
his force to be credited with the $685. 900 paid
into the County Treasury this year? The city
police did the work that brought almost every
cent of this money into the County Treasury,
and must have the credit for it,
In this connection we give the following let
ter from ex-Sheriff Dresser:
NV attention has been called to document
signed by j D. Sawyer, as Sheriff OF Cumber-
land, in which he institutes com parison be-
tween the amount of fines collected in the SUI
perior court during my last official term,
embracing the years 1880, and the amount
collected in said court during his term, Au-
gust 9, 1882, which is evidently intended for
taxpayers in the country towns not familiar
with the working of the courts, and evidently
misleading as 10 facts (either purposely or 9TH
erwse). To those familiar with the enforce
ment of the liquor law, it is we'll known large
proportion of the cases brought in the Munich
pal court are appealed to the Superior court,
and therein continued for a year or more, so
that to a large extent the labor OF the officers
in making cases against rumsellers in any one
year. are realized in fines in the Superior court
the succeeding year; consequently my success
sor is able to appropriate to the account of the
deputies during his first year of 1881, all or
nearly all the fines paid in the Superior court
from cases made by any officers during 1880,
and appealed and carried forward by appeal to
the year 1881.