The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1893-01-24

To the Editor Of the Press:

giving of bond not to violate the liquor
law. Now we have plenty OF officers
whose duty it is to see that the law is not
violated. Why not call on rumsellers IN
general to give bonds that they will not
violate the law? 1t might serve in place
of penalty and fine. AS matter OF TACT
bond is not only superfiuous IN this
case, but is in a measure ridiculous. 1t
is begging the question; asking the man
who is liable to commit a criminal Oh
tense, and gainst the commission OF
which there is constitutional enactment
and high penalty, to formally promise
that he will not commit it, failing IN
which nromise he. or his bondsmen, will
nav sum equal to, OF in excess OF, the
legal penalty.
The most that can be said of this part
of the bill. if there were no other provis-
ions in the bill to weaken or destroy its
effect. is that it is simply an increase IN
the money part of the fine; and when
respectable apotheearies will sell liquor
for other than medicinal purposes, as
they have been doing for years, with the
disgrace of Imprisonment staring them
in the face, as well as a fine, an increase
in the money penalty will not deter
them from violating the law it they
choose to do so.
But the new bill provides an easy way
out of all trouble and penalty for such as
are disposed to sell liquor for other than
medicinal purposes. Where, heretofore,
the apothecary has run the risk of pay
ing the statute fine and suffering term
of Imprisonment, he escapes all legal
punishment, as we'll as liability on his
bond, if he or his registered assistant be-
Heues that the person applying for it
wants the liquor for purposes stated in
the certificate, signed by the applicant.
That is, he or his registered assistant is
required only to believe that, his custo-
mer tells the truth. Whether his simple
affirmation to the clerk or oath is neces-
sary to release him, the bill fails to say;
but this is all that is required; (see sec.
n of billy that If the faith or credulity OF
the apothecary is large enough to induce
him TO sell quart of liquor to customer
when he knows it will be sufficient an
swer to every prosecution under the stat
ute prohibitory law, as we'll as co Liability
on his bond.
Now it is no use to evade the fact that
it has been common thing for apothe-
ance of law, and in spite of the fine and
risk of Imprisonment, and when all this
can be avoided, will not that class of
apothecaries who have for years faced
social disgrace, through the danger of
arrest and imprisonment, find it very
easy to believe what an old customer, or
pc haps friend, is willing to subscribe on
a written or printed certificate without
.nquiring too closely into his habits or
what he NAV know of them?
have said that this question of faith.
belief in his customers statement, is all
that is required of the apothecary, or his
assistant. repeat that tits the gist and
pith of the whole bill. viii anybody be
able to prove tina the apothecary, or his
assistant, does not believe what he
affirms that he does believe?
The sections following number 4 re-
late to certain forms and minor penalties,
all Ringing on the matter of faith ex-
eept Sections and s, which deal with
the purchaser of liquor, who is required
to certify on written or printed form
these certificates would, doubtless, be
bound in book form) that the liquor lis
not intended for a beverage, nor to sell
or give away Fine and imprisonment
for such offense. That is, the man who
buys and is willing to periure himself in
| the event of detect on, apparently runs
a much greater risk than the man who
sell the liquor. In fact, however, about
as little risk as it would be almost as
difficult to prove the act of violation in
| one case, as to disprove faith and belief,
| in the other.
| This bill comes from the druggists; il
satisfies them: 1t is not surprising, All
they want is permit to sell liquors fol
medicinal purposes only. just so. Now
| let us take Portland, for an example.
How much liquor is used here in a year,
strictly for medicinal purposes and out
side of druggists preparations. Com
| paratively, very little. The amount di-
vided among our fifty apothecaries and
| druggists would show an extremely
small margin of profit, on the sales OF
| each. Even if we take the City Agency
| figures it would leave no great margin OF
profit to each of fifty dealers. Have we
| not right to assume then, that the rea
meaning of the bill, or of any law bind
| ing on the druggists and apothecaries
where medicine is excepted, is not that
| they shall only sell for actual mediinalt
purposes, but that they shall sell to al
icho call for liquor for medicinal par
poses? On this point the new bill seems
| to protect them. peculiarly from an.
| general or special violation of the pro
hibitory law; it gets the matter dow
| very fine and gives those who are dis
posed to sell Unfortunately a chanc,
to escape easily, It is a neatly writer
and printed farce the execution of which
would believe, result in the same loos
enforcement and general violation of tn
| law which has been witnessed in year,
| past.
Now what demand is there for such
law, or amendment, as is called for b.
! the druggist bill.
Is it because the people, the citizens O
Portland or other places, cannot now bu
all the liquor they want for medicin
That is precisely what the liquor agenc
was established for. Is it any NOR
difficult to get liquor at the agency thai
formerly? Has the supply run short
Evidently not. What, then, is the mai
ter? Has the Agency become too stron
competitor for the druggists, or for til
rumsellers-which? Take either OF al
the reasons alleged and show wher
logic or common sense come in in abol
ishing the agency and giving the bus
ness to the apothecaries. If nothin
| b,,+ ,oaJ;o;noe xuora cold hu tho ranc