The Portland daily press., 1892-02-09

rows than formerly. and on House Island,
where we do our business. In years past it
used to be no uncommon thing on House
Island to see half of crew drunk. OF
course we are opposed to drinking and
our influence has contributed somewhat
to better things; but the operation of the
prohibitory law is the great agent. remember
that about twenty-five years ago one OF our yes
sells came in with a load of fish, and proceeded
as usual to unload at House island. The crew
preliminary to the unloading, visited the city.
Our method of unloading is TO throw the fish in
to the water on falling tide, and have the crew
toss them shoreward as they wash them. When
the tide is low the crew take the fish and carry
them up the beach. When the time came to
carry M the fish from this particular schooner
of its ten men there was but one, the cook, able
to carry fish. The Others captain and all,
were paralyzed with drink. Such thing as
that never happens now. And since Sheriff
Grams enforcement we have had a great de-
crease in drunkenness"
Now it will be seen that MI. Trefethen
distinctly says that s'since Sheriff Cram S
enforcement we have had a great de-
crease in drunkenness. y Again he says:
''The effect of the enforcement of the
law is very apparent to u.s." Again he
says: "Any man who will say that
there are the drunken men about the
wharves that there was formerly, says
what he does not believe" Yet the Ar
gus carefully excludes all these state
ments from it's condensation of Mr.. Ire
fethen's remarks leaving it to be inferred
that all Mr.. Trefethen said was ''that the
decrease of drunkenness among them
the fishermen in his employ today as
compared with that of % years ago was
very noticeable
AS regards Mr.. Stewards statement
the Argus is somewhat fairer. 1t ad-
mits there is truth in his statement
that owing to the rigid enforcement of
law there is less drunkenness among the
men employed by the Grand Trunk than
formerly, towing to the great difficulty
of getting liquor" Here is distinct adj
mission that the prohibitory law has act
ually decreased drinking and drunken
ness. But this decrease which it thus
acknowledges the Argus attempts to off
set by alleging that ''another class of
men drink more liquor when it is diff
cult to buy it in this city, ''This class,
and very large class it is, says the
Argus send to Boston for liquor, and
buy it in considerable quantities, and
keeping it at their houses, or worse still,
at their places of business, drink more
than they would if the hotel bars were
running
What proof has the Argus to offer of
this? How does it know that this class
drink more liquor than if they bought it
at a hotel bar? Who constitute this
class? Mr.. Trefethen and Mr.. Stewart
assert that two classes of men whom
they see every day and whom they are
thoroughly familiar with are more tenn
perate now than before the law was Wig
orously enforced, thus showing that
drinking and drunkenness has decreased
by reason of the enforcement of the law.
And to this the Argus replies that anoth-
Ell class whom it does not describe with
sufficient accuracy to enable anybody to
investigate the facts drink more rum
than they would if they could buy it at a
hotel bar Is this vague assertion OF
any value to offset the positive and exact
state ments of Mr.. Trefethen and Mr..
Stewart9