The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1888-02-27


ley's discourse at the City Hall Saturday
night was reiteration of the statements
made in the sermon preached in State street
church some weeks ago which was publish
ed in full in tile PRESS. Those statements
have been thoroughly discussed and it is
hardly worth while to return to them except
as regards two points as to which Mr. Bay
ley alleges incorrect statements on the part
Of the Mayor. The Mayor said in an inter-
view that the main object of Mr.. Henry
Trefethen's visit to him was not to
complain of rum shop but to ask permission
to cut trees ON Peaks Island On this point
the Mayor and Mr.. Bayley disagreed. They
agreed that he complained Of rum shop, and
they agreed substantially as to what he SAID
during the conversation. The Mayors opin-
ion, expressed in the interview, that allu-
sion to this rum shop was an incident of Mr.
Trefethens VISIT rather that its main
purpose was an inference and we submit
under the circumstances a very natural one
Mr.. Bayley and Mr.. LeLacheur were talking
with the Mayor about the existance of liquor
shops in this city when Mr.. Trefethen
stepped into the room. Mr.. Trefethen heard
the conversation, and after it was con-
cluded, called attention to the fact that men
in his employ were getting liquor at GER
tain shop Oh Commercial street After the
clergynlen had retired Mr.. Trefethen asked
the Mayor for permission to cut trees ON
Peaks Island. Recalling this meeting some
days after the Mayor said that Mr.. Trefoth-
ems allusion to the sale of liquor to his men
was merely an incident of his visit and that
its main object was to get permission to cut
trees. As that was the only business Mr.
Trefethen mentioned to him in the CONVERSE
ton when they were alone together it was
the most natural thing in the world for him
to conclude that that was his main business
and that his complaint concerning the rum
shops was suggested by the conversation be-
tween the Mayor and the ministers, especial
ly as the natural and proper place TO lodge
such complaint was with the Marshal.
Mr.. Trefethen thinks he told the Mayor that
to make this complaint was part of his
mission, and perhaps he did. If so, the
Mayor forgot it, and recalling the circum-
stances inferred from them that Mr.. Ire
fethen's complaint was merely an incident OF
his visit As matter of fact, it was small
consequence whether it was an incident or
the main object.
Now, in regard to the Centre street school
Hero Mr.. Bayley accuses the Mayor, If not in
terms, at least in effect, of misrepresentation.
Mr.. Bayley admits that he, himself, misrepre-
sented when he gave the impression that
every pupil but one in that school drank in
toxicating liquor. He says it was uninten-
tional, and there is no doubt that it was.
But men who ask charity ought to extend
some Mr.. Bayley has no hesitation in in
sinuating that the Mayor Intentionally omit
ted to mention several of the drinks that the
teacher wrote on the blackboard. Now the
basis Of this insinuation is an interview
with the Mayor that appeared in the
Advertiser, in which only intoxicating
liquor mentioned was lager beer. AT the
time of that interview Mayor Chapman
had had only brief conversation with the
teacher and had not received the detailed
statement that Mr.. Bayley had been furnish
ed with and which the Mayor subsequently
received. In the interview with the Mayor
published in the PRESS whiskey is mention
ed and the statement is made that five or six
pupils confessed to taking it when sick. As
a matter of fact this list is of very little
value as showing the habits of the pupils
and never ought TO have been paraded for
that purpose. The teacher asked the pupils
to indicate which of the beverages she wrote
on the blackboard they had ever tasted and
which they drank frequently. They wrote
tonic beer and ginger ale and rum and whis-
key and lager beer. Now because pupil
in response to that dual question wrote
whiskey it is not legitimate to infer that he
drank whiskey frequently. But that is the
inference that has been drawn, and it has
gone abroad that eight or ten pupils in that
school are in the habit of drinking alcoholic
beverages because in answer to this dual
question they wrote whiskey. rum and lager
beer. A single taste at some time in their
lives Of any of these beverages would have
been sufficient to justify such an answer, and
it is altogether probable that single taste
was the justification of many If not the most
of them.
The new matter in Mr. Bayley's discourse
was his statement that liquor is still sold
and his assertion that its sale under
the circumstances, is morally conclusive
evidence of an understanding between their
proprietors and the city authorities. AS
evidence of the fact of sale, Mr.. Bayley ex
hibited four bottles of different kinds of
liquors bought, he said, during the past
week at those places. He admitted, how
ever, that the rooms where liquor was form
erly sold had been closed and that other
rooms had been selected. Now, how does he
While admitting that he had no legal proof
of the connivance of the municipal authori-
ties he did not hesitate to express the opin-
ion that they were guilty of such conduct.
But he added 81 do not bring charge
against any ihdiyidnalo of course IL is i'm