Mexico weekly ledger., 1888-03-15

are for the ak firsl months Of last
year when the number was 922.
Portland Is altogether the most
drunken city in America. This Is
universally admitted and so exces-
siye is the decentralization and 50
long has ii prevailed that it has
alarmed the good people there very
much, and only recently Rev.
Frank F. Bayley of that place
preached q sermon there showing
the shameful condition of the city,
with her open and undisguised
rumshops and drunken citizens, al
leging that the vice had gone into
the public schools, from one of
which drunken scholar had, only
q little while before, been removed
by policeman. Such startling
picture did he draw that | sent to
him for a printed copy of his SER
mon. which he sent me, so that /
know / do not misrepresent his
statements, and he is Prohibi-
ZIONIST, too.
also wrote to a very prominent
citizen of Portland, who also was
formerly a Prohibitionist, concern
ing the subject matter of Rev. Mr..
Bayley's sermon, and he replied
only few days since, and as. /
have not yet obtained leave to pub
lish his letter.. merely give ex-
tracts from it. He says: ~
would shy in addition to this that
the day before my article appeared
| employed detective to give me
the number of places where liquor
was sold in Portland, and he gave
me 140.
s.We have had the prohibitory
law on our books now for thirty
five years, and I see no reason to
believe that it is possible to enforce
prohibition in city of 10000 peo-
pie. If enforced with vigor it
drives all the rum-shops into
place where il is impossible for the
authorities to control them.
1.-The evidence proves that in all
cities of any population in this
State after thirty-five years trial
prohibition has been lamentable
failure. And / have noticed that
in Belfast recently club has been
formed from prominent members
ofboth political parties for the pur-
pose of attempting to repeal the
present law and put high license in
its place.
Senator McGini.is went into de-
tails and further showed by stats
ties the fallacy of prohibition in
Portland, Maine.
When told that prohibition does
not prohibit, its votaries some
times admit the fact, adding,
''Neither do laws against murder
prevent murder, nor laws against
stealing prevent theft, nor laws
against forgery prevent forgery.
Yet we pass laws prohibiting these
things"
They regard this as unanswera-
BILE, while in fact it is shallowest
sophistry; laws prohibiting MUIR
der, theft and forgery are directed
against the acts of murder, theft
and forgery, and not against the
means by which these crimes are
committed. While prohibition
which seeks to lessen intemperance
is not directed against intemper-
ance, but against the liquor by
means of which intemperance is
brought about. Following the
logic of prohibition, laws against
murder should be directed against
the manufacture and sale of all
those instruments with which mur-
der is committed; laws against
theft should prohibit the creation,
buying and selling of property, or
things to be stolen; and laws against
forgery should prohibit the manu-
facture and sale of pens, ink and
paper asssafording fatal facilities
for the commission of forgery.
Ofsuch stuff as this is the logic CD
of prohibition throughout.
But does prohibition give any
relief? That is the question we
are now on in connection with
Maine.
Heretofore estimates of the in
crease of crime in Maine have gen.
orally been based on two or three
years; such cannot be so satisfactory
as one covering period of forty
years, and so I have prepared a
table showing the number of con-
victs in the penitentiary of Maine
on the Both of November each year
from 1910 to 1880 inclusive.
| We cannot stop to read all these
figures, ,and so will summarize them:
In 1910 there AZ convicts, in 1856
there were rs convicts, in 1850
there were 112 convicts, in 1876
there were 167 convicts, and il
1880 there were 10 convicts.
You will bear in mind just
| here that prohibition was enacted
there first in 1851, and then there
was only two out of every SOLO ot
her population in the penitentiary
but in 1880 there was one out ol
every $3.50 confined there, an in
crease of 165 per cent, while hel
population had increased only IL
per cent. exactly.
i No prohibitionist can gainsay
these figures; and | ask you te
/ ponder them we'll. Crime has not
increased at greater rate in any
of the old States in the Union thar
it has in Maine under prohibition
Does this not positively prove one
of two things, either that intemper.
ance does not increase crime, Oh
that prohibition does not lesser
intemperance2 There can be but
one answer, and we will pass on tt
, the consideration of the claim thai
, prohibition destroys nine tenths OF
the insanity by removing its cause
:, INSANITY.
i In 1850 Maine had 561 insane
and in 1880 she had 1912, an in
crease of 274 per cent, while tht
J increase in her population wa.
only 10 per cent. In 1850 hel
;J;o+;, INV, bara6 hy,t 577 and ir