The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1892-04-11
Licensed Grog Shops.

To the Editor Of the Press:
On the 4th of June 1891 the hotel men
of Maine held their annual meeting in
Waterville, at which they were loud and
long in their complaints Of the Maine
Law because it interfered with them in
the prosecution of their business. They
stigmatized the law as harsh and unjust
because under it they could not make
their calling SO profitable as it would be
if they had full permission to sell intoxi-
cants. There was a good deal of talk
among them as to their undoubted con-
stitutional right to sell rum, but not one
word to show that rumselling was in har-
mony with the public good and never
consistent with the welfare of society.
Without showing this they had no case.
There is no principle of law more uni
versally received and more firmly es-
tablished than this, that no one has a
right to do anything whatever it may be
that is in conflict with the interests of
the state and with the welfare and hap
piness of the people. The first step then
for the saloon men of whatever grade or
name to take is to show that the grog
shops do not directly or indirectly lead
to poverty, paupeTisn, insanity, crime
and premature death, and that they are
in no way in conflict with the general
welfare.
IL London I was dining with John
Stuart Mill the famous philosopher of
of that time who had written books on
liberty, especially on personal liberty"
In course Of conversation he said to me:
do you deny that people have right
to drink whatever they like and as much
as they like provided they do not inter
fere with the rights Of others?'
No, we Go not deny that"
''VeTy well then, they have a right to
least tolerated where they can obtain
their lrinI.''
beg pardon Mr. MIL, I do not think
that fellows from our conception. That
ia the point in contention Between u.s.
The places where they obtain their drink
do interfere with the rights of other
people; they do this more than all other
mischieyous places combined. AT pres
ent.t they get their drink and we have to
Lay the bills; we object to that; we pro-
tast against that II they can, discover
some plan by Which they can have their
drinlr-not at all injurious to the public
welfare. VIC cannot object. At present
the drink shops are an intolerable public
nuisance and we propose not to tolerate
them longer than will be necessary to
change pubic opinion upon this subject,
to our way of thinking, Mr.. Mill made
70 reply.
We can have no claim upon the legisla-
ture for the enactment of prohibition
upon any other ground than that the
liquor traffic is a tremendous evil to the
Nation and people, and absolutely incon-
sistent with tho public good Can the
hotel mon deny this? They have not yet
attempted to do so. MI Gladstone, some
years ago said in the House of Commons,
We have suffered more in our time from
tbs liquor traffic than from war, pesti-
lence and famine combined, those three
great sccurges of the human family. No
one has denied OF even suggested doubt
OF the truth Of that affirmation.
This is the. position of the hotel men;
they wish to faston upon the state for
their own pecuniary profit, greater evil
than war, pestilence and famine COM
bined.
In 1884 the people Of Maine put it into
the Constitution By majority of 1900,
that tkoy would not tolerate the liquor
traffic; that it was in deadly conflict with
every public and social interest, that it
should forever be under the ban Of the
law. The hotel men for personal ends
seek to change ali that and to subordi-
nate all public interests to theirs.
NEAL Dow.