The Portland daily press., 1893-08-01

Senator Lot M. Morrill, is dead, and we
cannotgo to him for an explanation of the
precise idea he intended to convey when
he said that rumselling was the ''gigan-
tic crime of crimes.'' But Senator Nor
rill was man of ability and great good
sense, and therefore it is safe to assume
that he did not mean to convey the idea
that the offence of selling liquor in vio-
lation of the statutes of the State of
Maine exceeded in enormity every other
offence known to the criminal law. 1t
is not at all likely that he meant to say
that rumselli9g was worse than murder,
worse than rape, worse than burglary,
worse than highway robbery. What he
meant, undoubtedly, was that in the ag-
gregate the offence of rumselling in
tlicted more misery on the human race
than any other crime taken in the aggre-
gate. He had in mind the frequency
with which the crime of rumselling was
committed and the comparative infre-
quency of other criminal acts. 1t was
the gigantic crime of crimes, because
taking into account the frequency with
which it was committed the bad results
which proceeded from it exceeded those
that followed other crimes. With that
Interpretation his statement was true
and corresponds with known facts. And
that undoubtedly was the Interpretation
he intended should be put upon it.
A law enacted by the legislature of
1891 provided that person convicted of
the Illegal transportation of liquor in
this state should be punished by fine of
$500 and one years imprisonment and in
case the fine was not paid another year
imprisonment was added. A law passed
by the same legislature provided that a
man convicted of liquor selling should
be fined 800 and imprisoned 90 days.
Thus the penalty for transporting
liquor exceeded the penalty for
selling it five times in the fine and
six times in the amount of the
imprisonment. Gen. Neal Dow alleges
that Chief Justice Peters declared that
the penalty for transporting liquor was
so excessive as to constitute an infraction
of the constitution which declares that
''all penalties and punishments shall be
proportional to the offence Whether
Gen. Dow is right in his allegation we
do not know. But we think such
a ruling on the part of Judge Peters
or any other judge would be right
and proper and in accordance with
common sense. The crime of the trans
porter of liquor consists in the fact
that by his act he aids the seller; SO that
the thing he is really punished for is as
sisting in liquor selling. Now the legis-
lature declared that the liquor seller
that is the principal-should be fined
800 and imprisoned 60 days. That de-
gree of punishment expressed the legis-
lature's idea of the gravity of the offence
of rumselling. Having fixed the punish
ment of the principal at 800 and go days
it was clearly guilty of fixing penalty
disproportionate to the offence whenit
decreed that the man who assisted the
rumselleiA by transporting the liquor
which he sold into the state should be six
times as severely punished as the rum
seller himself. A mere statement of the
facts shows the absurdity of the law of
1891. If it concerned any other subject
than rumselling Gen. Dow would have
no difficulty in seeing the absurdity.