Morning journal and courier., 1894-02-22

I
sufficient security to the amount Of $500
,hall be fled with the commissioners in Or
Ter that license may be secured. The
are in the habit of requir-
ing the bondsmen to make oath to bis
possessions of property to the amount OF
81, 900. A cursory examination of the
names of sureties on the hcen ses Issued
this year indicates that a large proportion
Of them are good; we find few, however,
whose possession of property to that
amount would be Ee VS. in the tax collect
or's Office.
DUTIES OF PROSECUTING AGENTS.
Section 3103 provides for the appoint
ment of prosecuting agents, whose duties
are defined in other sections. Thess agents,
according to decision rendered lately in
our court of common pleas, do not prevent
other prosecuting attorneys from bringing
for any violations of the liquor
laws, but they are officers added to the
judicial machinery for the express purpose
of securing the enforcement Of the liquor
laws.
1t ia of Importance that these prosecut-
ing agents should be men of incorruptible
character and of vigilant intelligence. The
concurrent appointive power which the
statute confers on a judge of the superior
court is intended to secure care in their
appointment.
We note that the total number of prose-
cutions brought by the agent of the COM
miseioners in this town between August l,
1898, and February 1, 1894, were 20. Ct
which 10 were fined and IL otherwise dis
posed of.
THE METHOD ALONG THE SHORE.
An interesting side light is thrown upon
the history of liquor prosecutions in this
county by the methods which are employed
in dealing out Connecticut justice to un-
licensed liquor sellers who devote them
selves to refreshing the thirsty along the
shore during the summer months. We
had been for soma time at work obtain
ing precise facts and figures with regard
to this profitable method of enforcing the
law and at the same time satisfying all
parties concerned, when fortunately q
statement volunteered by Mr.. Gum in the
recent hearing before the court of common
pleas, relieved us of the nect ssity of OBJ
tanning further evidence in this matter.
According to the statement then made by
Mr.. Gum, for the proof of which, as Mr..
Gum kindly informed US in an answer to
an inq airy of mine, he thought he could
procure competent witnesses-the practice
in certain Milford cases has been this:
About once month the prosecuting Off
Ger would gather under the wing of Con-
necticut justice these email liquor vendors,
and would have mutual fines imposed to
the mutual satisfaction of all concern 81:
and then ne would return to the bosom OF
his family in the proud consciousness that
he had done his duty, and that he had the
fees in bis pocket. On OF @ occasion, how
ever, according to the same good author
ity, word WAS sent to the prosecuting
agent that he must not come down that
month as the business had not been suff
GENTLY good In this way, as you zee, the
costs of such enforcement of the law do
not tax the liquor seller So much as a
regular license would do. If this felici-
tous method of enforcing the law ia to be
openly approved by the commissioners,
we would respectfully suggest that the
ratio between the frequency of the visits
of the prosecuting officer and the profits Of
the business, ought to be more exactly de.
fioed and on some principle of equity, If
not of statutory law; otherwise the mis-
fortune might occur which was threatened
in another county when tie prosecuting
agent became 80 frequent and 80 rspacious
in his visits that tbs unlicensed liquor sell
er was obliged to tell him that he must let
up little or he would have to 60 out of
the business. We have, however, 10 re-
liable Information that any liquor seller in
this county has been obliged to come to SO
uutimely an end by any over-exerticn of
the prosecuting agents
REvoCATIoNs OF LICENSES.
Under sections 3075 and 3053 (as amend
ed by the public acts Of 1899, chapter 1877, J
the commissioners are required to revoke
licenses in all cases of conviction for vio-
lstions of the liquor laws; and further
more to refass license to any person so
convicted, or who may have paid fines and
penalties in settlement of prosecutions for
such violations within the year pi ,sding
his application. Thu record of the
county commissioners under there statutes
might be divided into two periods,
the first covering the time when 10 the
nevne's of their power the present board
dispensed licenses with free hand, and
the second period covering the time since
public agitation has called their attention
to these statutes, and the law has become
pre- cious in their eyes. As I have had oc
casion previously to refer to certain cases
which came up during the earlier period,
do not deem it necessary to give any fur
tier account of them now. 1t should,
no Tever. be stated in justice to our com.
missioners that in each of the ca es, ]
think, in which We commended that lice aees
should have been promptly revoked, appli
cations for new licenses have either been
withdrawn or rejected.
EVASION OF THE LAWS.
wish at this poins to call your atten
ton to three ways in which the liquor laws
may be evaded independently of any necs 8
ssry knowledge or direct responsibility OF
the commissioners One is the metho6
just described OF not taking out lie snse
or giving any bond, but of settling a.
stated intervals with tbs prosecuting agents
for less sums In the total than a regular
license would cost. Another and favorite
way, which illustrates also certain domes
tic virtues, may best be described by givine
a concrete instance of it.
On the 24th of July last the prosecuting
agent, Mr.. McWilllsms, brought com plain
against Mr.. Thomas Nngent, citis IN Of
| this town, for selling liquor on Sunday
| contrary to law. The information origi
| nally given, as I learn from Mr.. McWil
| liRms-on whom would not cast any re
| hsctions for exercising his lawful discre
ton in the conduct Of this case-was tt
the effect that the Sunday liquor sellip,
occurred on the licensed premiees of sale
Thomss Nugent. On the twenty-nintt
day of that same month, however, ther,
was witnessed a sudden transformation
scene of Connecticut Justice From on,
end of the stage exit Mr.. Nugent through
| the ever convenient door of u nolle, Will,
at the other end appears Mrs. Tnoms,
Nugent to take the part of a vicariout
| victim to the msjesty of the law. Mr.
| Thomas Nugent, it should bs explained
| departs from the legal stage with his Il
| csnse safe and his bondsmsn unharmed
while Mrs, Thomas Nugent appears to play
her appointed part mbarrassed by any
consequential legal d ficultiee So on thu
29th OF July last the prosecuting agent, OF
his oath of Office, complaint and informs
ton makes against Mre. Thomas Nu9-n
for selling liquor in her husbands ssloo1
that fateful Sabbath day. Mr.. Nugen
humbly withdraws in favor of his wife
while Mrs. Nugeat, With a womsu's self
sacrifice, faces for the family the stern ne
| cessittes of the court, and the prosecuting
agent, touched no doubt with chivalrou
| admiration for this example of devotion
prosecutes the devoted wife only for vic
lsting the Sunday liquor law, aud has n,
heart to add another count and convict he
also of selling without q license.
One might imagine this to be an exc 30
tional instance of family devotion, ou. :,
study of the records reveals other instances
of similar substitutions on the part of rel
atives and friends among the Illicit liquo
sellers. In one case the bartender be
comes the victim on the altar of Connect
cut justice, while the proprietor. who's
agent he was. is set free-he, and his Ii
csnss, and his bondsmanI But how mucl
longer shall such trifiiDg with the law b