The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1884-05-14
Prohibition and The Argus.

1t pleases the Argus to say that the PRESS
is ''favoring local option" and that it is
Engaged in converting the Law and Order
League to local option" The PRESS has
done neither of these things. It has expli-
city declared itself favorable to the prohibit
tory law and it's enforceme emf. The PRESS
has expressed the opinion that local option
law will enable any city or town where pub
lie sentiment will secure the enforcement of
a prohibitory Law to prohibit the traffic in
liquor in that place effectually. 1t knows
a city having from fifteen to twenty thou
sand inhabitants where by the operation of
local option probably less liquor is sold in a
year than is sold in Portland between twelve
O'Clock noon and twelve O'Clock midnight
nearly every day in the week. If there was
a prohibitory law in that State no better re-
suit would be obtained in that community.
The PRESS has protested against the mar
rowness which classes all persons not in IA
vor of the prohibitory law as "rummies, y for
it believes there are sincere and self-denying
friends of temperance who do not think that
the wisest scheme of law for oil States under
all circumstances; but the PRESS has uttered
no word hostile to the prohibitory law of
this State or in advocacy of substituting for
it local option law. 1t believes that prohi-
bition can be enforced under the prohibitory
law wherever it could be enforced under a
local option law; it being impossible 10
suppress the liquor traffic under any law in
places where public sentiment does not earn
estly and vigilantly require, demand and en-
force its suppression.
As for the Law and Order League, the
PRESS believes in il and supports it heartily.
Instead of trying TO convert 1t to any theory
we insisted that it ought to have nothing to
do with theoretical questions, and should
aim to secure the influence and cooperation
of every citizen who is in favor of enforcing
the laws ON the statute book, which are pro-
hibitory laws. We believe the PRESS is the
only daily paper published in this city which
from the date of its organization has steadi-
ly commended the avowed objects of this
league or given it any encouragement.
As for the ex-Marshal and Mr.. Sullivan
the columns of the PRESS will be searched
in vain to find any word of condemnation of
Mr.. Andrews for closing up Sullivan's shop.
We are glad he did it. Our criticism of the
Marshal SO far as it has reference to his ac-
ton in enforcing the liquor law has not
been on account of his shutting up Sullivan
but on account of his cupable neglect to shut
up scores of other places where the law is as
notoriously violated. He was accused of
misconduct not for shutting up Sullivan's
shop, but for failing to prosecute him as rig
orously as he ought. There has been some
criticism of such energy as the ex-MarshaI
exhibited because 1t appeared to be prompted
more by motive of political revenge than
by zeal to suppress the liquor traffic. We
suspect that the secret of the. Argus's de-
light in Andrews is his nice discrimination
in selecting victims. 1t should not be for
gotten that MIR. Sullivan after he had served
time in Jail for violating the law was, elected
and reelected to the Common Council with
the aid and support of Mr. Andrews and the
Argus.
The Argus appears TO be inclined to ac-
cept the fact that Mr.. Andrews made sever
ficiency and it intimates that the special
deputy sheriff is inefficient because be has
not wasted time on man the Marshal had
under constant surveillance. Let us look at
the record. In a years service as sheriff
Mr.. Andrews made less than two hundred
seizures, more than three-fourtns of them in
the last four months of his term after an
an election in which his party was defeated.
In years service as City Marshal Mr.. An
drews made less than so seizures, and 50 of
them were made in the last month after an
election in which his party was defeated,
the persons most frequently Victimized be-
ing well known opponents of his party.
During the period while Mr.. Andrews
was City Marshal his successor in the
sheriff's Office made ouer 800 seizures,
more than four times as many as
Mr.. Andrews made while a sheriff and
more than eight times as many as he made
as City Marshall. In view of these facts is
it not apparent that when the Argus pro-
nounces Sheriff True inefficient it gives
away Mr.. Andrews defence and confesses
his gross neglect of duty9