The Portland daily press., 1892-05-05
Especial to the Press.1

lOPCCidl W tilc IToSS.l
BANGOR, May 4.-The censuring of
Judge Peters by the Grand Lodge of
Good Templars here has caused a great
deal of talk in regard to matter which
is not generally understood. The matter
has been prominently brought before the
public in the past two days by the publ
cation last evening of a statement made
by one of the committee on resolutions
OF the recent state convention of the
Good Templars. The committee CON
sisted of ex-senator H. F. Daggett of
Milo, Rev. F. FL. Morgan, the bright
young pastor of the Methodist church at
Orono, and Mrs. Hodgdon, a prominent
lady temperance worker of Lewiston.
The statement in behalf of the commit
tee follows:
The Committee's Statement.
The facts are as follows: At the term of the
court referred to- something like $50 liquor in
dictments were found by the grand Jury against
the Penobscot county rlmsellers
In addition, there were a large number of ap-
ppeaied cases, some % or more from Oldtown,
result OF q vigorous crusade by the temperance
people OF those towns. The defendants in
!neSe appealed cases were also included in the
indictments above mentioned, which were
found under the Nuisance Act
IneSe cases, Judge Peters would not allow
e0,come 20 trlai and we have singular speeta-
cles OF criminals under bail who should either
come before the county attorney for trial or de-
fault; failing to do either, and instead, after a
qulet conversation with the Honorable Justice,
fine.
This fine was assessed by the Judge. accord
ing 70 tne size OF the business. carried on by
eacn. NOW as to the cases indicted under the
Nuisance Act no question is or has been raised
as TO his power to let the criminals off with a
sl SIMPLE flne Although the friends of the pro-
hlbltory law might be inclined to criticise the
inadequate fines imposed they do not question
the legal discretion of the Judge. But they do
Deleve thaS the plain intent of the law has been
ignored, and that criminals have been permitted
70 escape the penalty which he might, had he
Deen disposed, have imposed upon them.
A Vigorous Rejoinder.
Judge Peters was perfectly right in his
position in regard to the liquor cases.
The following statement of the facts
gives the position of Chief Justice
Peters and does not leave the Good Tenn
plars' committee leg to stand upon.
The statement which follows was pre-
pared by one of the prominent members
OF the Penobscot county bar:
The Good Templars have censured Judge Pc.
ters for his action in the liquor cases. Their
Justification for such, unprecedented action is
principally in the following paragraph:
These cases Judge Peters would not allow
TO come to trial and we have the singular spec
tacles of criminals under bail, who Should eth
er come before the county attorney for trial or
default, falling to do either and instead after a
quiet conversation with the Honorable ,Justice
settling their cases by the payment Of nominal
fines"
The only case on the entire docket of the
term In which the Chief Justice had the right to
sentence man for violation of the liquor law,
and the only case in which the county attorney
moved NOV 1or sentence, or could move for sentence,
was Immediately disposed of by the presiding
luStlce by both fine and Imprisonment, in ae-
c0rd With the letter and provision of the stat
nte, ana the man was Immediately incarcerated
IN IN !all, and presume is there now, serving out
ms sentence. That this statement is unques-
4onably true, the February criminal docket will
disclose and the county attorney will verify.
Ihere was not another case disposed of on the
DOCKET under which the Chief Justice, or any
otner e Judge, could have imposed sentence and as
TO these case Judge Peters would not allow to
come to trial. y it is entirely false and without
foundation. The county attorney will state that
IN no instance did the presiding justice ever re-
iuSe 70 allow MIN to try any case pending on the
docket at the last criminal court. The only case
1t was in the power of the county attorney to
Try or the presiding justice to pronounce SEN
!ence In, was tried and a sentence of fine and
imprisonment pronounced by the court; and in
that case the defendants counsel if he had not
wished to go to trial, could have demurred and
sent the case up to the June law term of court
Il would have come back at the next August
have let his bail be defaulted and thus avoided
the penalties Of the law by allowing his bail to
pay In certain sum of money, which would be
In accordance with the bail bond given, and
court, as matter of law, could have been dis
posed OF In the same way, regardless of the ef-
forts OF the county attorney or the vigilance of
any justice OF the court who might be presiding.