The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1884-05-03
The Proposed Prohibitory Consti-
tutional Amendment.

i Inc HTODOSeQ EEOu1D4VOhy OOn6Ok-
tutional Amendment,
| To the Editor Of the Press:
As an advocate of the proposed prohibitory
| constitutional amendment was grieved to no.
tice in your issue Of Wednesday morning an
editorial utterance to the effect that the "testi'
mony" recently obtained by the Boston Post
and published by you simultaneously with that
paper, "discloses wide difference Of opinion
among the professed friends Of prohibition 70.
garding the wisdom and utility Of the proposed
constitutional amendment" coupled with the
intmation that the testimony unfavorabls to
the amendment so far overbalances that In Its
favor as to excite doubt as TO the wisdom Of its
adoption.
With your permission desire to call attsn.
ton to fact in connection with this discussion
which the opponents Of the amendment seem
to have entirely lost sight of-that there are
large number OF very excellent gentlemen In
this State In all the parties aud representing
all the professions, who are and always have
been hostile to prohibition. Whenever called
upon they are ready to define their position
and give their reasons for opposition to a prin.
cciple generally favored by the more active
friends OF temperance reform. Now, Mr.. Edit
or, no one whose utterances are entitled to
weight will think OF denouncing these gentle.
men as "rummies:" but, / submit, there Is very
little propriety in quoting them as 'professed
friends Of prohibition" or for considering thsir
testimony Of paramount importance in testing
the sentiment of prohibitionists az to tue Riss
dom OF legislation designed TO render the pro.
hibitory principle more effectivei As well
might you expect an intelligent opinion from
Free Trade Watterson as to a measure involV.
ing the principle OF protection to American In.
dustryl
There is perhaps no authority for saying that
the array OF testimony given us In your Tues.
dow alt taN
who were specially called TO fortify the cause
OF the negative side OF this discussion: and vet
hazard the statement that one well acQuaint-
cd with the opinions Of influential gentlemen
in Maine would hardly class such names e
Darius ID. Ingraham, Esq, Hon. ID. W. Mort.
lund, Frank A. Wilson, Esq, or Hon. Abram
Sanborn OF Bangor, as among "the proieased
friends Of prohibition" And since Il Is not or.
pected that the friends of repression are es-
pecially interested in a measure devised BY the
friends Of the suppression OF the Liquor Traf-
nc, there Is nothing especially discouraging In
the fact that even the excellent gentlemen you
name doubt the wisdom of a measureidezigned
to strengthen principle to which they may be
unalterably opposed
But, Mr.. Editor, il 1t shall be claimed
that there is no force in my proposition that
the true sentiment in favor Of the amendment
and OF prohibition can best be ascertained BY
calling Its recognized friends as witnesses,
insist that the weight Of the testimony is large
ment, 1t now being generally conceded
that for the purposes Of this campaign .thoss
are interchangeable terms, since 1t Is now well
nigh impossible TO defeat the amendment with.
out at the same time seriously endangering
prohibition. They stand or fall together. I
might fill your paper with testimony az to
the efficacy of prohibition in this State from
gentlemen entirely competent to testify, and In
whose Judgment and integrity the people Of
Maine 80 fully confide as to render the test-i
mony of especial value. can, however, mon
ton but few of the witnesses.
Against the testimony Of Bishop Nicely and
DR.. Hill, place that Of the eminent Portland
clergymen of all denominations who have 20
often and so earnestly spoken upon the subject;
OF the unanimous expression Of three hundred
olergymen OF the Methodist church in this
State; and of more than three-fourths Of the
clergy OF all denominations in Maine, 50 ex.
pressed at their conferences and annual convo-
cations. is there any doubt as to whe.s the
weight of testimony lies so far as the Maine
clergy Is concerned.
Over against the testimony Of the ex. Presi-
dent of Bowdoin College-Which, it will be re-
membered, is on the whole not unfavorable to
prohibition and contains a reasonable assurs
ance that he may feel bound to vote for the
amendment to avoid the danger of having his
vote counted as in favor Of lioense-I place the
decisive words of the Presidents Of our two re.
naming colleges, Bates and Colby.
Against the somewhat non-committal teati-
mony Of ex-Gov. Chamberlain, and the silence
OF ex-Gov. Hamlin and ex-Gov. Davis, place
the unequivocal utterances Of ex-Govs. Lot M.
Morrill,, Arson P. Morrill,, Sidney Perham,
Nelson Dingley and II. NJ. Plaisted. Also, Of
Hon. James G.. Blaine, Hon. VIM. P. Frye,
Hon. j. III. Drummond, Hon. Wilbur +. Lunt,
and Hon. Isaac Hobson, all Of whom have Civ
en- testimony Of great weight as to the efficacy
OF prohibition. OF this testimony quote our
distinguished Senator Hon. w. P. Frye, whom
member of the House, endorsed with the
concurrence OF Hon. Lot M. Morrill,, Hon,
Hannibal Hamlin, Hon. j. G. Blaine, Hon,
John Lynch and Hon. Eugene Hale:
Il can and do, from my own personal observation,
unhesitatingy affirm that the consumption OF in,
toxicating liquors in Maine is not to-day onefourth
as great as it was twenty years ago; that in the
country portions of the State the sale and use have
vigorous enforcement of its provisions has created
temperance sentiment which Is marvellous, and
to which opposition is powerless."
Against the Judgment of Judge Appleton.
who resides in community where the LIQUOR
law has been practically nullifed for years,
and where "free rum" rather than prohibition
has been the rule, we place the testimony of
the Attorney General of Maine, a. communi.
Gated to the Legislature by Gov. Dingley In
1876:
''The Acknowledgement embodies in his reuort
communications from the several county attorneys,
furnishing important official statements and statis
tics relating TO the enforcement Of the laws prohb
iting drinking.houses and tipping shops. The sta
tistics show that during the past year in the Su-
preme Court Alone there have been 276 conyic-
tions Al commitments to JAIL and $50, 89S collect
ed in fines under these laws-more of each than in
any other year, and four times many convictions
and ten times as much in fines as in 1856, when the
general enforcement of these laws was resumed AZ
ter the close of the war, which had engrossod the
public sttentioR and energies 1t is significant also
that during these nine or ten years of gradually in
creasing efficiency in the enforcement Of tho laws
against dram the number Of convicfs in che
State Prison has FALLEN of more than one: fourth.
Upon reflection, Mr. Editor. it will be seen
that the array of testimony in favor of prohibit
ton is very largely in excess Of that put in ON
the other side; and when the votes shall be
counted in September think you will become
satisfied, If not already, that three-fourths OF
the voting population Of Maine are unatera-
bly, favorable to prohibition; and that dn1ong
prohibitionistS there is very little difference
of opinion" as to the propriety-raoao that 1t is
before the people-of adopting the amendment.
n A q