The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1894-06-27

guish true temperance man from a
third party agitator. My promise to
| them holds good at this time"
| Sheriff Cram here referred to the trials
and difficulties surrounding man who
honestly tries to enforce the prohibitory
law in this state. He claimed that he
had tried his best, but had not received
the support of avowed temperance men
of this city and county. On this point
the Sheriff said:
when I first came here and entered
upon the discharge of the duties of my
office, felt that it might be hard for me
to deal with the rumsellers, largely be-
cause l knew so little about them and
so few of them. Some of the temperance
people suggested the employment of de-
tectives, but I said that it seemed to
me that it would cost too much. That
men who ought to be employed, if any
thing was to be done in that way,
would not give their time.and attention
to the work unless they were well paid
for doing it, and that the public funds
could not be used for such q purpose
The bills could not be paid out of the
public treasury.
sit was suggested to me that fund
could be raised to help defray these ex-
penses, and to employ detectives. One
of the sums agreed upon to be paid to
me for the employment of detectives was
5000. paid out rather more than that
sum, and received just 500 of the $500,
and the remainder has never been paid
to me. I will not at this time give the
names of those with whom the agree
| ment was made.
Then, in order to avoid private ex-
pense, ] appointed men privately from
time to time, to act in the same way,
discharging them after little while
and employing others.
The attention of Sheriff Cram was
calledsto the seizure made the previous
night at the Durant House, of which
Colonel Fred N. Dow, is one of the
owners, and of prior seizure made at
the same hotel. Sheriff Cram was also
asked If the current report was true that
General Neal Dow soon after the first
name from the bond of one of the7liquor
deputies. The sheriff was unable to re-
call the exact date, of the seizure or
of the removal of the name of General
Dow from the bond of thesdeputy in
question. He thought that the seizure
General Dow removed his name from
the bond in the following month. He
did not desire to discuss this matter,
not being disposed to question the mo-
tivessthat led General Dow to cease to be
a bondsman in this instance. Regard
ing the seizure, Sheriff Cram said:
"All that I can say about the first
seizure at the Durant House is this
There was a seizure, and it was on a
complaint made against the place by a
deputy sheriff without special instruc-
tions from me. The proprietor was
brought before Judge Gould under the
search and seizure act. I was not in
court. and know no more about the de-
tails of that case than about any other
case that is in court and is handled by
the deputies
when the grand jury docket was
made up, l attended to it myself, as
always do, personally taking my cases
and the evidence, names of witnesses,
etc.. from our sheriff's docket, as re-
quire every case to be recorded. In
making up the docket for the grand
jury. put this case in just the same
way as l did many others, simply.because
there seemed to be evidence enough to
hold the respondent.
"An Indictment was found, and the
attorney made about the same defence
that is commonly made in cases of that
kind. That it was theifir offence of
the respondent, under the search and
seizure act, and that itwas.hard to
have him sentenced twice3for practically
the same offence. Cd
81 have no doubt that the Indictment
was found on exactly the same evidence
that the grand jury rejected in other
cases of a similar nature, and on which
they refused to find indlctm ents, but
this was entirely the fault of the grand
jury, if fault there was on the part of
anyone.
!. In my opinion, had Rev. Matt S.
Hughes, General Dow himself, or any
other of the prohibition people of Port
land been before the grand jury, they
would have been indicted on very slight
evidence.
"This seizure of liquor made at a
house owned by wealthy real estate
owner, suggests problem in the simple
rule of three. If a landlord cannot re-
strain one tenant, how can four depu-
ties deal with 400 rumsellers in this CITY?
But after all the dirt there is in this
business I believe that prohibition is
right. have waited anxiously for the
last six months for the men the sgood
temperance people have been4 talking
about to appear, the men who could com e
into this office and enforce this law,
not in connection with the present dep
uties, but Independently, private ly, and
with no interference on the part of any
one connected with the sheriff's office,
but with hearty cooperation"
SHIP ST. DAVID. s 's@te