The Portland daily press., 1895-11-13
THE MARSHAL AND THE BOARD OF
ALDERMEN.

The statutes of the State in relation to
victualers read as follows.
No innholder or victualer shall have or
keep about his house, shop, or other
buildings, yards, garden, or dependen-
cies, any dice. cards, bowls, billiards,
quoits, or other implements used in gamb-
ling; or suffer any person resorting
thither to use or exercise any OF said
games or any other unlawful game or
sport therein. and every person who shall
see or exercise any such game or sport In
any place herein prohibited, shall forfeit
five dollars.
No innholder or victualer shall suffer
any revealing, riotous or disorderly con-
duct in his house, shop or other DEEPEN
denotes; nor any drunkenness or excess
therein.
The licensing board shall prosecute for
any violation of this chapter, that comes
to their Knowledge, by complaint, indict-
ment or action of debt, in any court of
competent jurisdiction.
On Monday night the city marshal ap-
peared before the licensing board, that is
the board of aldermen, and asked that
the license of one Henry F. Todd be re-
voked. His allegations were that the
man kept dice and cards on his premises,
that he had been frequently intoxicated
in the shop. and that there was a
noisy crowd of loafers in the vicinity OF
the place. Each one of these things Is
violation of the statutes of the State,
they are things which victualer is alb
solutely forbidden to do or to permit.
There was no denial of singls one of
these charges. All that was said in his
defence was that he didn't sell rum, that
he had an aged mother, that it was
hoped that he was going to reform after
he got out of jail, that he should have
another chance Yet the board of alder
men, only one member dissenting, refused
to revoke his license. They had granted
his license subject to the approval of the
city marshal, but when certain facts
came to the marshal's knowledge that
convinced that officer he was an improp-
er man to hold such a license, and he
quote the language of our esteemed con-
temporary, the Argus, turned him
down." One of the aldermen sapiently
remarked that the ordinance said moth
ing about revoking mans license If he
had read the statutes of the state he
would have discovered this paragraph:
And at any meeting notified and held
as above named they, (the licensing board)
may revoke licenses so granted if in their
opinion there is sufficient cause therefor.
Their power to remove is made sufi-
GENTLY clear by this paragraph, and the
inevitable conclusion is assuming that
they knew the law that they did not
consider repeated violations of the
law of the state sufficient cause for
such revocation.
1.-THE statute also provides that only per-
sons of good moral characters shall be vic
tuallers. Whether man who is serving
a sentence in Jail for being common
drunkard answers that description the
public may judge for themselves.
The great mischief of this case is the
encouragement and comfort it will carry
to the lawless classes in this community.
1t is a practical notification to them that
the obs ervations and opinions of the
police authorities, whose special duty it
is to see that the laws are obeyed, do not
count for much with this ioard. 1t is
practical notification to victualers who
are granted special privileges that
they may violate the law with i'm
punity so far as this board is con-
oerned. 1t is distinct encouragement
to every off oor of the police force to be
active and vigilant for it says to him in
the most forcible way possible that he
-.I1 l.. ,~<.1 20
worst kind of blows to public order that it
is possible to infiict, because it leaves the
impression that the principal board of
the government is Inclined to be lenient
to lawbreakers The marshal
did his duty. The board of aldermen
were shamefully recreant to theirs There
was not keeper of disorderly shop or
house in the city of Portland, not
gambler or loafer or hummer but
chuckled as he read how the board of
aldermen turned the marshal down."
We observe that one of the aldermen
who voted against reyoking the license
explains that he did SO because he did not
want to deprive the man of his means of
livelihood. The answer to this in the
first place is that to revoke his license
does not deprive him of his means of
livelihood. 1t only closes one avenue to
him. There are plenty of others open.
In the second place it is not the
business of aldermen to look after the
livelihood of people. Their business is to
see that the laws are obeyed. In their
individual capacity they can indulge in
as much sympathy as they please. They
can put their hands in their own pockets
and contribute to anybody's necessities.
But in their official capacity it is their
duty to sec to it that in matters under
their supervision the laws of the state
are complied with.