Oxford Democrat., 1891-07-21
roo MANY rolss ~ THG
SKINNER

wb.u thr sm-uImruts to th~ liquor
law wen. passed by ths Lrsi.hiurr hst
winter. it "a snnouny~i that The pcual-
ty fur -cliiag liguor hsd h~vn incr'as',i
and the lav 80 iiNc,l that for the fir.I oi-
fence the seller would hc .ubi-,t o. q fiue
Of slcp and co.t. aud imprisonment ior oo
day. The statement. 90 Oar a. Ne know
~as not contradictcd; y,t ths fr.t m1n
convicted ~ single s,lc after the u"s hS
went into cfiryt rv,~i,-i a PENALTY 90 df-
~ dollars fne and thirty day. in jail.
hi. called attention o. the fact that the
old law relating o. single al" H. =.
chap. q. ~. %. a. amended by public
Laws % 49, had not t.ccu changed. I,
i a. follows;
"whn~yvr by himself. clerk. servant
Or agent. sells any Intoxicating hquurs
m this state. Ia violation - aN, shall
pay a fine % not les than fiity dollar
and costs. aud la addition thereto D.
imprisoned thirty days. On default 81
aid payment b. shall D. imprisoned
thirty days additional, aud on each sub
ss,lusnt conviction b. shall b. punishe'i
hy q fne ~ two hundred dollars snd
cost. and Ia addition thereto D. impri.-
ousl siN months. sni In default ~ pay
meut % said fns and cU.ts, d. shall D.
Imprisoned in monihs additional"
Hut how al-uut the hundred dollars
hnc and sixty days imprisonment pro-
viiei Tor offender. by the hst Iesi.la-
tgrvf Well. that 6. la the SEXTON rclat-
ing a. search and seizure. aud docs not
apply ." indictmeut. found under other
scCtions, sni commonly known %. single
sals. commou seller. drinking house aud
Tipping shop, etc. The penalty Zoe each
Of these various offences IA. Included
imprisonment .lncc the hw was amend
ci by the Legislature ot l,>s.
Nov the question naturally ariscs, II
the penalty for an these offence. has In
cludel Imprisonment, how i Il that so
many sellers. Indicted under some %
these .cytion. of the laW, have got off by
paying q fine The discussion 10 ~
cent ease shows hoN Il nav D. done.
Tie Piitsheld Advertiser reported the
cas- "a hotel kcsp.er AZ the Forks Who
was rahlc,i by the county attorney aud
sheriff. aud taken bcforc trial justice
aud dncd slDO aud co.ts. 'and thus the
case wss settled The Portland Pre-.
thought thc trial justicc did not act ac-
coriiug 10 Law. az the Law provide. Zoe
imprisonment a. well a. tine. The Ad-
verti.er la reply cites section % chapter
l3i II The Revised statutes ~ Maine, a.
follows:
"No person shall D. punished for an
onence until convicted thereof in a court
having Jurisdiction % thu person ant
case. When no punishment j. provided
hy statute, a person convicted 20 an
offence shall D. impi isonei for les than
Que YEAR or hn~i no exccc,ling i've
hundred dollars. HAsa n is prsrkif,f
thrf A. sail ~ pHsis.si bT iaprssanisnf
aHd So. 80 D. iaFr,sisaassf ~ 80. A.
asrY a. ssafeHcfti O. sifAsr - hssA."
IN" law a. Il stands at present pro-
yides fine aai imprisonment FOR every
form % violation ~ the sections regard-
ing the sale Of liqaor: yet with the above
quoted scction standing a. Il dce., IL l.
impossible 10 enforce both. unless the
judge having Jurisdiction sec. dt to Inn
poss them.
The liquor laws 20 Maine are some
thing % puzzle Co the unsophlsticsic,l.
There seem Ia De- loopholes all the way
along. from the first complaint To the final
pronouncing of sentence. When an in-
dictmeut has run the gauntlet of liquor
sympaihiters on grand aud petit juries,
the nullifying tactics of an indifferent
county attorney. and all the legal tech
nicalitiss that can be devised By able
counsel, u finally rests In the discretion
of the Judge to impose large fine aud
costs and heavy sentence of imprison-
meni, or 10 impose a hne and costs. All
the amendments .o Tar carried through |
by the friends Of temperance make little
difference In the actual state of things. |
There are too many large holes In the
skinner.