The Portland daily press., 1882-03-14
DIR. McKHowN EXPLAINS.
More About Mr.. Libby and The Special
DOCKET.
PORTLAND, March 10, 1882.

PORTLAND, March ID, 1857
Mr.. EDIToR:-T following brief editoria
calling on me for public reply, appeared IL
| your issue of Saturday morning last:
We must believe that his audience misnnder stooe
/ the Rev. DIR. McKeowns words at the mee!iHs II
City Hall last evening" that the speaker falea .
accurately express his thought. 1t is not 70 "
credited that an honorable man and especlauy
minister of the gospel, did, on the word OF siaiu
| erer whose name he never knew or had forgoIte5h
impeach the official integrity of servant OF Tue
| State whose name has always been held above re-
| proach. Such an impeachment is unfair, unmanly
unchristian. 1t is like charging an honoreo clergy
man with faithlessness to his pastoral duties OF
reputable woman with unchaste conduct we con,
idently expect that the speaker will at once anu
publicly seek to remove the mistaken impression
that his remarks made on his audience.
All care to say of myself in regard to 1t al
present is, first, that have no evidence that
was misunderstood by the audience, and, sec
ond, that L did not "impeach the official IN
tegrity' of Mr.. Libby, but merely said that
had been told that he did not, while County
Attorney, faithfully execute the provisions OF
the prohibitory law, as had been so often
claimed for him, till called to his duty by ms
superior in office; but that 1 did not know thai
it was true. So am correctly reported az
saying in your own account of the meeting.
AS the rest of my reply submit for puDlica-
ton the following correspondence. Your read
ers can Judge whether he was faithful in en-
forcing the law even after his attention was
called to it: 1000
My Dear Sir.-You were present last Friday even,
T ng at the temperance meeting in City Hall, anu
heard my reference to a statement that said had
been made to me, that Mr.. Libby had not been
faithful in the discharge of the duties OF his once as
County Attorney in enforcing the prohibitory law
and have doubtless the editorial re1eTeuCo
to it in Saturday mornings Press: Knowing your your
deep interest in and perfect acquaintance Will te
fortunes of the "Maine Law take the liberty OF
asking, whether there are any facts WITHIN your
knowledge which would go to show that this report
in Office is illfounded No one Will be more pleased
to know that it is than myself. An early reply Will
si'"'i' O'' 4. McKEowN.
Req. DR.. MeKcoioa:-
Dear Sir,-In reply to your note of this date,
have to say that when you alluded in your speech
at City Hall to rumor which you had heard that
Mr.. Libby, when County Attorney had favored !he
men who were convicted of violation OIL the NAME
Law, 1 supposed 1 knew to what you referred,
though you could not remember what it was;
The law provides for Imprisonment as well as tne
on second conviction. In order to procure q
second conviction it is necessary IN complaint and
warrant to allege former conviction ana this, IN
express terms, the County Attorney was by law d.
rected to do, but, in fact, he never did 1T to my
knowledge.
In order to compel him to do this, the legislature
passed law by which he should be punished by
fine of one hundred dollars in each case of failure to
do so. After this the former conviction was
alleged, but the law was not enforced even SO well
as it had been before, because convicted rumselers
were put upon what was called the special docket
By this arrangement, these convicts were not pun
ished at all, the understanding being that sentence
should be suspended if they would abstain from
violation OF the law. But in fact the conyicts who
were thus let off from punishment on such condi-
ton was convicted afterwards, and again and again
yutr he said sssDacial dOck0to Some of these
men, was told, were on this special docket
twice, and even three times.
The law is explicit in its declaration that on the
second conviction the convict "shall' be punished
by SO much fine and SO much jail. This special
docket completeyinulliied the law as understand
it. and knIw of no warrant of law Tor establishing
the said dccke'.
This practice went on under Mr.. Libby until
respectful remonstrance addressed to the Court
caused it to cease. In as few words as possible l
have givensyou the prominent factsn relation tothe
famous especial Docket" by which convicts were
shielded from the penalties Of the law: by TINS
don convicted rum-selers and to relieve them from
punishment without warrant in violation OF law
Very truly yours,
NEAL Dow.
1.-THE above letter of Gen. Dow does gross
Injustice to Mr. Libby in the statements and
reflections it contains upon his course as Coun-
ty Attorney.
So far as the letter imputes to him any acts
or disposition to shield violators of the law
from punishment, it is without foundation and
in exact converse of his course as prosecuting
officer. Mr. Libby is not responsible for the
existence or the use which was made OF the
Especial docket" which was established by a
rule of court when Judge Goddard was first
appointed its Judge. The responsibility for its
use-which was doomed q most effective in
H. st No
traffic-lies with the court, not with the prose-
cutting officer The latter has performed his
duty when he has prosecuted a case to convic-
ton. 1t was never used while Mr.. Libby was
County Attorney with the intention or pur-
pose of shielding any person from punishment
or of "favoring the men who were convicted OF
violation of the Maine law" On the contrary
no case was put upon the Especial docket" I'M
til it had been Prosecuted to conviction, and
then only by special order of court after hear
ing and upon its own responsibility, and with
the understanding that on proof of any further
violation of law the offender would be brought
up for sentence on motion and punishment IN
flicted Twenty-seven such cases occurred
during Mr.. Libby's term Of office. 1t was
deemed more effectual than bonds to keep the
peace Its use was confined to special cases,
where it was believed to be the surest method
of driving the defendants out of the liquor
trade, holding the conviction over them upon
their promise to leave the business; and its
most frequent use was where the parties were
sentenced at the same time on other indict-
ments, and one was held ready for sentence
without trial. on the special docket in
case they should offend again. Mr.. Rings let
ter in Yesterdays issue. which we republish
this morning, shows his estimate of it. But
the credit OF discredit of it, whichever it may
be. was with the court, not with the prosecut-
ing officer. There was no change in the man
ner of using the special docket during Mr.
Libby's term of office, 1878 to 1878.
We think this is q substantial statement OF
the facts in regard to the special docket, as un-
derstood by the judge who presided in the Su
perior Court at that time. Ed
Mr.. Rings Letter.
Mr. EDITORIALS many erroneous impres
sions in relation to the special docket are get
ting into the minds of many good and we'll
meaning people, it seems to ne that the facts
should be known. The wonderful docket is
not secret or sealed book, but is open and
public to all. 1 have often had occasion to
study its pages, and while I was engaged in
the enforcement of the Liquor Law became
very much interested in it, by having to copy