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


the force acting under his orders, receiving
special compensation for enforcing the law,
made only 40 seizures, aud in these cases
there were bnt convictions! Have these
figures no significance? On account of the
inetficiency of Deputy Andrews and his as
snciates during this period, Mayor Libby
Issued a special order to the police instruct.
Ing them that the failure of the sheriff to
perform the duty with which he was spe-
cally charged, did not relieve them of their
duty to be active and vigilant in this regard.
In September Sheriff Sawyer, who had
been elected by fusion of Democrats and
Greenbackers and to whom Mr.. Andrews
owed his appointment, was defeated in the
election. The new sheriff did not take Of
fee until JaL uary. In the four months dur
Jog which Sawyer and Andrews continued
in power Andrews made about $50 seizures,
three times as many as in the eight months
preceding There is a striking analogy be-
tween his record and the one be has made
recently. Naturally the question occurs,
why this sudden development of activity
The answer that was then generally given
was that be was paying off bis political
scores.
In March, 1883, Mr. Deeripg, with the
aid of Mr.. Andrews, was elected mayor,
and how that election was regarded by the
'rum vote" is we'll known to our citizens.
At the beginning of Mayor Deering's admin
istration Mr.. Andrews was an unsuccessful
candidate for city clerk. Later he was ap-
pointed city marshal. 1t has not been
suspected heretofore that Mayor Deering
made the appointment for the purpose of
insuring vigorous enforcement of the pro-
hbitory law. Nothing in the public record
of Mayor Deering or Mr.. Andrews up to
that date justifes such presumption. But
what was his course after he got into office?
Did he execute the law in good faith on
all violators? Or did he execute it partially
aud discriminatory to serve the political
ends of the mayor and himself?
One of his first official acts was the fa=
nous 40 O'Clock ORDER" which no fair con-
struction can make to mean anything but
an implied notice to liquor dealers that they
need fear no interference by the city police
provided they put out the lights and locked
the doors at 10 o'clock p. m. Let us now
consult the record of his performance to
see whether good temperance men are war
ranted in thinking his removal an injury to
their cause. From May /, 1888, to March
30, 1884, City Marshal Andrews made only
As seizures. To eleven months as CITY
marshal he did not make so many seizures,
by four, as during the first eight months of
his inefficient service as deputy sheriff.
During this same period of eleven months
the special deputy sheriff who succeeded
MI. Andrews made over 300 seizures Could
Mr.. Andrews ineficiency, whether as sher-
If or marshal, in executing the liquor law
be more clearly shown?
But while he was lcity marshal, as while
he was sheriff, there came change in the
energy of his discharge of duty. In March
last his friend, Mayor Deering, was defeated
for reelection, as his friend, Sheriff Sawyer
had been in September. Nothing stimulates
his official zeal like defeat at the polls. In
this case, as in the former one, the election
WAS followed by vigorous prosecution, not
10 say persecution, of certain violators of the
law, few old and well-known offenders hav-
ing the fortune to be repeatedly victims
of his newborn zeal. From March 10th to
the date of bis removal, one month, he
made almost as many seizures as in the pre-
vious eleven months; but two-thirds of
these seizures were directed against seven
persons, most of whom, if not all, it is
ri i01od did M 10 To- l.
them to.
This comprises the record of his perform
ance in executing the liquor laws. Upon
this rests his claim to be regarded as a
champion of prohibition! Do we forget bis
order of April 18th last? By no means.
The scandalous laxity of his official conduct
toward liquor sellers had reused a popular
resentment; the Law and Order League had
been organized; he had reason to be-
lieve that charges would be preferred against
him. Then he sought interviews with the
temperance leaders, which smack of
shrewd reaching out for support, and be
issued his new order, as imperilled sailors
throw tno to an angry whale. If he
issued it without the Mayors sanction, why
could he not have issued it last year Instead
OF the 10 O'Clock order? If it had the
Mayors sanction, why should he be thought
better temperance man than Mayor King?
Such friends of prohibition as the Argus
and the Advertiser and Judge Goddard are
sure that Mr.. Andrews has always worn
saints aureole, and now they are busy
weaving for him a martyrs crown. 1t is
impossible to fabricate one which will not
appear to be mocksry of justice, as insin-
cere and unbecoming as lying epitaph.