Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1890-08-28
Mr.. Thompson and License.


Mr.. Thompson, the democratic candidate
for governor in his speech at Rockland,
| justified the action of the second demo-
cratic convention in declaring against the
| policy OF prohibiting dram shops, first be-
cause prohibition has utterly failed"
secondly because "the democrat party
has always declared against sumptuary
| legislation; and thirdly because the pro
| position is to resubmit the prohibitory
constitutional amendment to the people,
and ''any one is poor democrat who is
afraid To trust the people to settle this
| question:"
| Does 1t not occur to Mr. Thompson
that he and those license democrats who
agree With him are the very men who are
determined that neither the people nor the
| democratic party in full convention shall
settle this question? The people of
Maine have voted twice directly on this
question-tirst in 1858 when they approved
the prohibition of the dram shop by %, 900
majority. and again In 1884 when they
approved it by a. 900 majority Again the
democratic party of Maine in full conven-
tion in June last rejected a license resolu-
ton by vote of l16 to 213 whereupon
on the re-assemhlng of about half of the
members of the convention in July to
nominate candidate to fll the vacancy
caused by the death of MIR. Hill. Mr.
Ihompsons friends numbering only l45
took advantage of the absence of Ia Of
the delegates who attended the first con
yention and voted against license, TO put
through the proposition which the ma
Joriiy had voted down aud would have
continued tn vote down if they hat been
present A. they would have been IL they
had supposed the second convention
would Dc guilty OF such sharp practice
Does i not occur to Mr. Thompson that
he Is the man who Is trampling on the
wishes Of the democratic party As express
al it, fall conventions?
Isn't u rather suggestive that while the
iiiuor dealers and their friends are shout
ih@ !" z'aIou-it that our policy Of prohibit
Ing dram shops is failure. they are at
~" same time doing all In theIr power to
substitute license for it? Ii it were really
the fact that the liquor interest sells more
liquor in Maine under prohibition than
could De sold under license, does Mr..
q fnr~nn believe they would oppose pro-
Hihit1"h 50 Zcalpu>l " as they dot Indeed it I
i wei! known that convention Eo. ? was
induced 10 take the position they did by
representatives Of the liquor interest. and |
lAat large contributions Of money are eX- |
pcctcd from this interest to increase the |
democratic vote.
Mr.. thompson intimates that 1000 per |
sons are selling liquor In Maine In spite Of |
our prohihitory laws. The number was |
les than that as shown by the Internal |
Revenue reports. But suppose it j. 1000 |
| hat Is one 70 $50 population, which is /
one'third the average IN license states 4
But these 1000 persons are Obliged for the
most part To sell under such dftic,ltias
that one-fourth Of the number Of open
licensed grog shops would sell more iiqunr
than the whole thousand. Gen Neal bow
whose observation Of the liquor traffic in
Maine extends over 20 years said that not
'ne-twentcth of the liquor is consumed IN
Maine per inhabitant that there was under
license. This is substantiated also by the
Iact that while the TAX paid 10 the United
states by dealers and manufacturers of
tqnor J. sl9 per inhabiAut on the
average in the Union In Maine IL IS only
: cts. per inhahitant
According 10 carefully collected statis-
tc> IN 36s of the 500 towns In Maine. the
ale Of intoxicating liquors as beverage
: practically eXtngushed. In town after
own. where there We're from two TO ten
'pen grog shops under license there is
low not single place where 1t Is sold as
beverage
The people of Maine do not care 10 sur.
tnder the benefits gained under our pro
iibltory laws and 90 back to the old con
iiuon OF things under license.