The Press., 1894-05-10
{Hartford Courant.) THE LAWS IN NEW BRITAIN.

The town of New Britain last fall voted no license, and the sale of liquor there since that vote went into effect has been in direct violation of law. There has been abundant drunkenness, however, in this period during which the sale of in- toxicants has been forbidden, and nobody who knows anything of what is going on pretends to believe that the law Is en- forced.
 Earnest citizens of the place have felt the shame and disgrace of this situation, nor are the shame and disgrace theirs alone. The stain belongs to the whole state. For, while New Britain discredits herself, she also violates law, which Is not that of the single community but that of the sovereign state of Connecticut. With every drop of liquor sold in New Blitain the authority of Connecticut Is directly defied.
 These same law-abiding people, who object to this state of affairs, had three ways open to them to secure obedience to law. They could try to get those people who 'are accommodated with liquor to come in and testify against those who &C., commodated them. That's one way. It implies ingratitude it is practically i'm possible of execution; and, even when carried through, such evidence, being that of saloon bummers, is open to inn peachment. Rejecting that course as not likely to succeed, they could go and try to get something to drink themselves. Picture Dr. Cooper, Charles s. Landers, A. J. Sloper and such men trying to sneak in at the back doors of closed saloons. They couldn't get in. Their characters and regulations are such that they would not be admitted. That kills that scheme, to say nothing of the ugly things that might be said of any such man who did go and do the very thing that the law forbids, and who therefore would become himself violator of the law. What lofty scorn the counsel for the defense could hurl at him!
 The third course open to them was to hire men who would get in with the boys, enjoy the drinking privileges of the initi- ated, and then give the thing away. This was done. The witnesses told their sto- ries, and we venture to assume that most people believed them. But Judge Roche has declared their testimony discredited by it's course, and has thrown the cases out of court.
 How, pray, can the law ever be en- forced, if the courts wait for offenders to come in and confess? The effect of Judge Roche's decision cannot help being to encourage the liquor sellers, every one of whom violates the law. In effect it says: "Spotters" will not be believed; i; customers will not testify; reputable op- ponents of the sale of liquor will not be let into saloons Therefore the business can go on in safety.
 Suppose New Britain had voted to per- init the sale of liquor in licensed saloons, and that those who voted against such 8 course, but who were defeated, should re- fuse to accept the result, and, instead, open persistent war on the saloons. Suppose they. breke'~int6 these, smashed the beer and whisky barrels, and rendered the sale of liquor impossible. Would such conduct be tolerated? Everybody
 would say it was lawless, and that, what ever peoples views were, the law must be
 respected and obeyed. Do they say this
 when the law happens to forbid instead of
 sanction; and, if they don't, what is the l lrooqnp