The Portland daily press., 1886-01-23
THE DUMMY WARRANTS.
$500 Fines and Costs the Net
Results of 1900 Warrants.
Liquors Delivered UP to Favored
individuals.
How Unnecessary Expenses Have
Been SaddIed Upon the County.
Marshal Andrews Course severely
Criticized by the Commissioners
They Refuse to Allow His Bill Pre-
scented to Them.

They Refuse to Allow His Bill Pre-
scented to Them.
| The following document was sent by the
| County Commissioners to Marshal Andrews
Yesterday 1t speaks for Itself:
PORTLAND Jan. %, 1886.
| To Benio,ni,a F. .A1ldrems, City Marshal of Port
land:
Dear Sir:-Early in the present year bills
were presented to the Board of County Com
missoners for the expense of serving be-
| tween four and five thousand liquor war
rants which you had caused to be sworn cut
between July first and December thirty first.
| 1885, against persons and places where no
liquors were found; these being what are
known as Dummy Warrants"
Those bills were so unusual in amount
and the number of warrants issued so UMPIRE
cedentedly large that in the performance of
our duty of examining and correcting all
bills of costs" against the county we deemed
1t proper to call your attention to the matter
and afford you an opportunity to explain, If
possible, the reasonableness of your action
in swearing out warrants in this most ex-
traordinary and wholesale manner with con-
tinuously barren results.
You stated that you desired hearing be-
fore our Board on the matter, which We in
formed you we would grant, but instead OF
seeking that hearing you have seen fit to adj
dress to us a written communication, (eyi-
IDENTIFY intended for the public as it was i'm
mediatcly furnished to the, ARGUS" for publ
cati0n) which deals SO little with the matters
about which we wished information that we
have been compelled to search the records of
the courts for facts relating to these war
rants and your action as Marshal of the
city in the enforcement Of the liquor law 1t
would seem as if this was a matter in which
this Board was entitled to the fullest informa-
ton from yourself in justification of the large
bill of costs which your action has entailed
upon the inhabitants of this county, but as
you seem to consider it otherwise we will
deal with the case as we find it
| The records of the Municipal Court show
that during the six months in question you
have caused to be issued 1900 liquor warrants
and that on the whole number only three
persons have paid fines and two have been
committed to jail; on 1921 warrants no Ii
quors whatever were found, of the remain
ing 379 the great majority (215 were issued
against 'parties unknown" and of course re-
suited in no arrests or prosecution. This
leaves 1854 to be accounted for, representing
1876 respondents. OF these we find SO were
abandoned by you for lack of evidence, 80
were discharged after hearing, five were
dismissed, two were mol pros'd, three were
defective warrants, three were dismissed for
want of evidence, and so were fined, OF
whom 55 appealed and their cases are still
unsettled the singular fact further appears
that the larger the number of warrants is
sued in any month the smaller is the number
of successful prosecutions, diminishing from
l in q in July, when 308 warrants were is
sued, to in 157 in December, when 1857
were issued.
An examination of the 1921 Dummy War
rants" shows that 235 of them were issued in
July, 916 in August, 2O5 in September, 561
in October, S03 in November, and 1901 in
December.
The further fact appears that more than
$500 of these warrants are directed
against a comparatively few individuals, "a
places and that some of the persons against
whom they are most persistently directed
are not shown to have been implicated in the
traffic, for no convictions have been obtained
against them during this entire period, and
no liquors have been found upon the war
rants issued against them. Against some we
find you have for weeks at a time issued from
four to six warrants daily and all these war
rants have been returned with no liquor
found, and still in face of this experience
you have continued to make oath that you
believed" that the same persons were keep
ing liquors in the same places, where as in
one instance, 124 warrants had been so re-
turned within period of two months.
How far you are able to justify this course
with proper regard for the obligation Of
your official oath, we are unable to say, but
when it is asked Of us to approve of bills
for the service of such warrants and to tax
the inhabitants of this county for the pay
ment of the same, we are oblig-
ed to say that in our Judgment such action is
unreasonable and oppressive, and such as no
decent administration of public affairs will
support or approve. If this is ofieial discre-
ton and an impartial enforcement Of the
laws, then autocratic and arbitrary rule has
usurped the place of wise government
We are unable to reconcile your statement
that .sthe officers of the police department
made 449 seizures of intoxicating liquors dur
ing the six months ending December 31st,
1885, with the records of the court. These
records show only 379 seizures during that
time. If you have MADE that number of seiz-
ures, then you have made no return of your
officers doings or of the liquors seized in sew
enty cases. What has become of those IL
L. La,,o 1;c
posed of them without judgment of
court On investigation we find that you
have in many cases made no return ON war
rants of the seizures which have been made,
and in repeated instances without authority OF
law have returned liquors seized to the par
ties from whom they have been taken with
out bringing the cases before the court,
among others to Timothy Twigg, a rumseller
who has often been prosecuted In the courts,
but seldom by you, and is well known for
his connection with the liquor traffic, and to
whom is entrusted, instead of to sworn Off
GERS of the law, the responsible task OF
splitting seized liquors ION the dump" SINH
lar cases are those of liquors belonging to +.
l.. Stanwood & Co., W. 81. Mcdonald, of the
u. S. Hotel, c. H. Guppy & Co., d. F. Muir
dock, G. B. Greenleaf John Connolly, d. T.
S. Goold, and others, some of which involve
large amounts of strong liquors, besides large
seizures of ale and lager beer. The "otficial
discretion" which you have thus exercised
of suspending the enforcement of the law in
favor of certain persons, where your duty
was plain to libel the liquors and return the
warrants to court, is so grave malfeasance,
that we cannot but consider it as bearing
upon the question of the reasonableness OF
your action in swearing out 1000 warrants and
more where no liquors were found. and the
expense of which the county is asked to
pay.
Under the facts now before us we are una
BILE to certify the bill presented as correct OF
give it our approval.
DAVID P. CHAPLIN, County
HENRY NE p PuTTEh' Commissioners.