The Portland daily press., 1892-07-09


The only contest in that caucus was for
| sheriff, and though Mr. SWEET used the
plural number, he meant, and everybody
IN the room SO understood him, to coun-
sci the nomination of candidate for
sheriff who would appeal especially to
people who believed in the ubiquitous
folly OF the prohibitory law" The eau
Gus selected delegates in favor of City
Marshal SWEET, the man whom Mr.. E.
y. SWEET was supporting, and therefore a
man who would, in the latter's opinion
appeal strongly to believers in the Gin
quitous folly of the prohibitory law"
Now why did Mr.. E. C. SWEET think that
City Marshal SWEET would appeal strongly
to the class he described? Not simply
because the city marshal was disbeliev-
er in the prohibitory law, because the
office he was after was not legislative
one, and his views could have no legiti-
mate effect upon the law. There is only
one possible reason that can be assigned,
and that is that Mr.. E. c.. SWEET believed
himself, and thought the opponents of
the enforcement of the prohibitory law
would believe also, that Mr.. G.. L. SWEET S
treatment of the law when he became
sheriff would be affected by his opinion
regarding it, and that instead of being
particularly Jealous to inquire into vio-
lations of that law as the statute requires,
he would be lukewarm and unobservant.
This was the tempting bait that Mr.. E.
G. SWEET held out to catch opponents of
the enforcement of the prohibitory law,
and he held it out Intentionally, deliber-
ately. Mr.. Swett's remarks at that eau
Gus were published in both the Argus
and PRESS, SO that everybody had the
chance to see them. Did any Democrat
ever repudiate his advice as to the kind
of candidate that ought to be selected for
sheriff? Mr.. SWEET spoke for his party
and his candidate at the caucus in ques-
ton. He clearly offered as a reason for
the nomination of City Marshal SWEET
that the latter would be particularly
grateful to the believers in the ''iniqui-
tous folly of the prohibitory law" and
neither the candidate himself nor any
member of the party has repudiated his
utterance.
AS the next witness we will call the
| Eastern Argus, the recognized organ of
the Democracy in this county. On the
| day after Mr.. Swett's nomination, con-
trasting the situation two years ago
| with that at the present time, it said,:
The people of this city and this county had
| not then been afflicted with two years domina-
| tion OF sheriff whose chief purpose, as judged
| by his acts, is to outdo Neal Dow himself in the
| enforcement of one law that has been on the
statute books for forty years, to the neglect,
partial at least of other laws that in the COM
mon opinion are OF more Importance to the we'll
| being of the citizens generally. Many people
OF this city have grown tired Of picking UP bot
| ties every morning in their front yards. They
nave become weary OF seeing men staggering
through the streets of a city which, were the
enforcement Of. Dow,s law BY Sheriff Gram a
| cure for the drink habit, should be wholly free
! from those Saddening SpectacleS. In word,
| thousands of the good people of this city are
looking forward to another condition of affairs.
| Among these thousands are many hundreds OF
| voters who did not vote for Mr.. SWEET two years
ago. But they will vote for him this year.
Sheriff Grants enforcement has been
| in strict accordance with the statute.
| Nobody will undertake to deny that.
The complaint, and the only complaint
against him, is that he has given particu-
lar attention to the liquor law, just as
| the statute commanded him to do. That
is the burden of the Arguss complaint
| in the foregoing extract. Certain results
| have followed Mr.. Grams enforcement,
according to the Argus, which the peo-
pie have got tired of, and so they are
| going to vote for Mr.. SWEET in the belief
that he will remove them. Now assum-
| ing, for the sake of argument, that these
results have followed-as a matter OF
fact the town has been freer from drunk
enness than for many years, as the court
and Jail records will show--how can the
| election of Mr.. SWEET to the sheriff
office change them? The Argus says the
results are the effect of stringent en-
forcement of the liquor law-such an en-.
forcement as the law commands. They
can only be averted, then, by repeal OF
the law, or by modification of its en-
| forcement. Mr.. SWEET cannot do the for
mer, and therefore if he is to avert them
it must be by modification of the en-
forcement that the law commands. In
other words, he is not going to perform
the duties of his Office as the statute
requires.
If it is expected that Mr.. George L
SWEET is to give particular attention to
| violations against the liquor law, as the
statute commands, that is perform his
full duty, why is it that the Argus is con
stantly pointing out that the results
of Sheriff Grams compliance with the
statute in giving particular attention to
violations against the liquor law has beer
exceedingly hurtful to the community?''
Why does it continually offer Mr.. SWEET
as an antidote for the bankruptcies, bao
whiskey and bottle peddlers alleged tc
have been introduced by Mr.. Grants par
ticular attention to the liquor law, if Mr..
SWEET is going also to give particular at