The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1884-05-03

prominent and wealthy liquor dealers prosecuted
No. Why not? Was it because there was a muniC
ipal election soon to take place. and it was though
desirable to mass the rum element in a solid bod
for the support of a certain party? During tn
were Of the property Of two poor widows. 1t is fai
to presume, however, that if those poor womei
could vote they would have received the same i'm
munity from Marshal Andrews as the liquor dealer
of greater wealth and political influence.
But it is now urged that Marshal Andrews i
now enforcing the law impartially Let us see
Since March 29th he has made seizures at thirty
two different places. In other words, in the shor
period of about twenty-five days he has made with
in three of as many seizures as he made during
eleven months previous. If he is efficient now hi
certainly must have been grossly inefficient then
OF the thirty-two seizures made by Marshal An
drews since March Goth, twenty-One have beer
made against seven persons. While seizures have
been made in eighteen places. seven of these places
have received his particular attention. Now Mr.
Andrews admits that there are at least one hun
dred places where liquor is sold in this city. If ht
is an efficient officer whose desire is to mpartially
enforce the law, why does he not make seizures
upon other liquor stores in the city? Why not en-
force the law against all alike? Why enforce il
against seven, and practically permit nine-tenthS
of the other rum sellers to violate the law?
believe in an honest and impartial enforcement
of the law but respectfully submit that the rec
ords demonstrate beyond peradventure that Mar.
shall Andrews is not giving us an honest impartial
enforcement of the law, but is using the law as an
engine of oppression against a few liquor dealers
against whom he has personal or political spite.
If the records prove anything they prove that Mar
shall Andrews is inefficient and should be removed
(3) The third charge is.
"That on the twenty-frst day of March, 1884
he ordered nineteen of the night police to leave
their respective beats and to assemble at the Bos
ton and Maine railroad station without proper
cause, whereby the greater part of this city was fol
long time left unprotected and the lives and prop
erty of its citizens endangered"
The allegations in this charge are admitted By
the Marshal. The evidence shows that for nearly
two hours all the southern portion of the city wa:
unprotected. Not apoliceman was upon the Com
mercial or Exchange and Middle street beats, rep
resenting one the great business, the other the
great financial interests of the city. The police are
paid to preserve good order and to protect the in
terests of our city. The taxes which are paid BY
our citizens for the support of the police force are
paid for that purpose. marshal who will put
two-thirds of the city in deadly-peril was GER
tainy done on this occasion is sadly wanting in the
first requisites of an efficient officer.
~ The fourth and fifth charges are.
4. "That on or about the twentieth day of June
1888, he in consideration of the sum of fifty dol
conspiracy with the said Sullivan. to procure a
discOntinuance of proceedings which had been com
menced against the said Sullivan for illegal trans
portation of intoxicating liquors."
B. THAT on or about the thirty-frst day of De
cember, 1883, in consideration OF the sum Of fifty
dollars paid to him by james e. Cady, he entered
did procure, discontinuance on a complaint for
search and seizure against said Cady after he had
been found guilty and entered his appeal, but be-
fore the case had been entered in the January term
OF the superior court"
If these charges are true, every honorable man
will urge the removal of Mr.. Andrews. Now from
the nature of the case bribery is a very difficult
crime to prove. Testimony must be given by ac-
complies. will admit that such evidence should
be corroborated before it is believed. John W. Sui
livan and James Z. Cady testify positively that
they bribed Mr.. Andrews. Both Sullivan and Cady
have every motive to tell the truth, while Mr.. An
drews if he was bribed has every motive for
denying it. 1t Is however urged that Sullivan and
Cady are rumsellers and cannot be believed. 1 am
very glad to hear Judge Goddard take this stand.
Judging from his public uttel ances, have been led
to believe that heretofore he did not consider LIQUOR
selling such very disreputable business. Certain
~ his attitude on the liquor question has done much
to make rumselling respectable.
Has either Sullivan or Cady ever been found
guilty Of perjury, larceny, arson, forgery or any
other infamous crime? No. And not a witness
has been produced here to impeach their reputation
for truth and veracity. MIR. Sullivan was twice
elected on the Democratic ticket a member of the
Common Council from Ward Four. And this, too,
after he had served number of terms IN the
county jail for liquor selling and while he was in
the business. 1 an informed that while member
of the city government he conducted himself with
propriety and won the respect of his associates.
Mr.. Sullivan testifes that last June Officers
Pride and Frank caught him in the act of rolling a
barrel of ale from a team into ward on Centre
street. This is confirmed by the testimony of the
officers. Upon such evidence he was clearly guilty
of illegal transportation and onght to have been
convicted. But he never was. Why not? officer
Pride states that in about three days after the
Seizure he told the circumstances of the Seizure
Marshal Andrews, and that he directed him to
order Mr.. Sullivan to court the next morning
which he did. That evening Sullivan says he gave
Mr.. Andrews $50, in consideration of which he
promised to discontinue the proceedings. 1t is a
fact that Mr. Sullivan never appeared in court and
the proceedings in the case were dropped. Marshal
Andrews states that he did talk with Sullivan, and
that after hearing his version of the seizure he de
termined to drop the case. He also states that be
consulted Judge Gould who advised him to discon-
tinue the case Judge Gould, however, says that he
thing 1t is not probable that Judge Gould would
advise the dscontinuance of case which was sup
ported by such overwhelming evidence
Now such are the facts. What motive did the
Marshal have for dscontinuing this case? Did Sui.
Ivan give him $50 for so doing? Charitaply as
sumo that he received nothing for helping Sullivan
in this case the fact remains that he threw out an
good case upon the statement of The
criminal himself If Mr.. Andrews is to be believed
he is totally unfit for the position.
In reference to the allegation of the bribery by
James E. Cady, Mr.. Cady testifes, and the records
confirm il, that on October L. he and Hanrehan
found guilty of search and seizure in the NUM-
cipal Court. and that each entered anappeal, but
that before the appeal was entered in the Superior
Cady. Why was the case discontinued? Cady says
in consideration of $50 which he paid Mr. Andrews,
Now If Mr.. Cady was guilty why was the case dis
continued? Ii there was not good ease against
him why was he found guilty? 1 respectfully sub
nit In all charity to Mr.. Andrews that there is
something suspicious about the whole transaction
which reflects discredi upon him as an officer. Mr.
Andrews says he consulted Judge Gould about the
case and that he recommended discOntinuance of
it. Judge Gould, however, does not remember any
such conversation as Andrews testifes to. The
memory of MIR. Andrews is remarkably clear as TO
while Judge Gould remembers nothing about. Tru-
ly Mr.. Andrews must have a very remarkable men,
cry. His memory on this occasion is of very great
assistance to him.
contend however, that these two charges of
bribery are proved, and that if proved they are
simply specimen s,-phosphorescent glimmer-
ings of corruption breaking out in the darkness and
his path while he was Marshal. They
are merely bubbles from the dark and mantling
pool
The sixth charge is
''That in February 1854, he changed a complaint
after it had been sworn to, by changing the name
'.Thomas O'Neir' to Thomas j. O'Neil,S whereby
said O'Neil was tried and convicted upon a void
This charge is sustained by the evidence Of Judge
Gould, and is admitted by Mr.. Andrews himself
1t is, to say the least very wrong and unjust ex.
ercise of authority. By doing so he deprived Mr.
ONeil OF perfect defence, viz, plea in abate-
ment.
In conclusion, contend that upon all the evil
dence submitted it must be clear to any honest and
impartial man that Marshal Andrews has been
grossly and inexcusably inefficient in the perform
ance Of the duties of his position, and that it is