The Portland daily press., 1884-05-05

To the Editor Of the Press:
You omitted in giving in your supplement
the opinions of prominent gentlemen through
the State on the question of the prohibitory
amendment, to state that there were Is in
favor of prohibition and the amendment and
s opposed to both, while of the Is while in
favor of prohibition are opposed to the amend
ment. Three are non-committal.
I hope this is q fair indication of public
sentiment ON the question, and if the argu-
ments against the amendment are not mors
weighty than some OF those given the chances
are decidedly in favor of the adoption Of the
amendment by large majority.
With due Difference to the distingu ished
ability and acknowledged public services of ex-
Gov Chamberlain, to his literary and other
attanments, beg to call attention to state
ments he makes in his objections to pro-
hibitory amendment.
He says: 81 can indeed conceive of no evil
Of this kind becoming so grave that it might
properly be prohibited in the organic law
Well, that is precisely the ground that
temperance men base their action on; that the
situation is SO grave as to demand constitu-
tional enactment.
The fact OF the general violation of the law
in the cities throughout the State makes it
sufficiently grave to call for such action as will
prevent the law from being perverted or Grip
pied for party purposes. 1t is natural to sup
pose that politicians and others will have more
respect for a constitutional law, than one
which may be changed or repealed at any ses-
sion of the legislature.
He says further: Human law is only
valid and effective when it is the true ex-
preston of the conscience and moral convic-
tion OF the people," Very good. This is pre-
eminently question which will express "the
conscience and moral conviction of the peo-
ple," and as Mr.. Chamberlain says, it is only
valid and effective" as expressed by the peo-
pie. 1t would seem then to be a question
peculiarly appropriate to be decided by vote
of the people.
If Mr.. Ingraham had made farther research
he would have been less positive in his con-
viction that his figures as to the number of
drinking places in Maine, settled the thing so
completely as to preclude the ecessity of his
offering any opinion in the matter whatever.
The fact is that though the reports show that
there is one liquor dealer to every 518 in
habitants in Maine-there are in the license
States of New York, New Jersey, Pennsyl-
vania and Illinois taken together one dealer to
every 1877 inhabitants, and in New Jersey alone
one to every 1874, which consider striking
argument in favor Of prohibition, not against
it.
think District Attorney Lunt covers the
whole ground very neatly and concisely.
j. s. W.
We do not understand our correspondence
figuring. He says there are "1b in favor of
prohibition and the amendment" and that "a
of the 49, while in favor of prohibition, are op-
posed to the amendment. These statements
are contradictory If the latter is correct there
would be but II prohibitionists in favor of the
amendment, and the prohibitionists opposed
to the amendment added to the 8 opposed
both to prohibition aud the amendment, make
IL in all opposed to the amendment, which is
one more than those favoring it, and the nays
have it-EDI