The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-10-12
NEAL DOW AND HIS LAW.
The Last Interview with the AdvO-
cate of Prohibition.

Boston Letter in New York Sum-
What was probably the last interview be-
tween. Neal Dow and a newspaper occurred
last summer Until now nothing has been
printed about it. General Dow was confined
to the house. and, indeed, almost to his
bed from then until the day of his death
The prohibition of the sale manufacture
of intoxicating liquors had advocated
by him for forty-seven years he looked
back on what he and his c.. Tutors had
done with feelings of satisfaction. limited
only by the reflection that the sale of liquor
has not been entirely stopped in the State
of Maine. General Dow said that there
would not be a drop of liquor made or sold
in this country if the church members did
their duty and voted against the traffic as
strongly as they talked against it. A year
or two ago he created a sensation at a
Methodist camp meeting in Massachusetts
by declaring that it was the church people
of this country who were responsible for
continuance of the liquor traffic rather than
the men engaged in it, IF all the church
MEMBERS he said, would vote and work
for prohibition, the liquor business would
be driven out of existence; but this they
will not do, and they continue to vote with
either the Republican or the Democratic
party and as the managers of both these
parties are irretrievaby pledged to encour-
age the liquor interests as a matter of po-
litical necessity, there is nothing to be
hoped for in either of these directions"
For the reason that the church people will
not cut loose from the old parties and vote
as their convictions indicated, he said, he
did not hold membership in any church or
ganization and would not, so long as the
to he
the liquor traffic and at the same time voted
to continue it.
When General Dow was asked if he knew
that liquor was peing sold openly right in
his own city of Portland, he said regret
fully:
Yes, know it, but 1 think the evil has
been reduced to the minimum and it is not
the fault of the officers of the law or the
law itself that it is permitted. In spite of
all that has been said to the contrary, the
prohibitory law of Maine is success; but
1T is not perfect
Then he went on to relate how he first be-
came interested in the prohibition move
ment. In 1850, when he was mayor of Port
land he had neighbOr who was employed
by the government in a lucrative office.
The man had large family, and, in the
main, a good provider, but was adj
dicted to going off on long-continued sprees,
during which he would neglect both his
business and his family Finally the man
was about to lose his office, and his wife
came to General Dow and told him that she
had been to the saloon keepers to ask them
not to sell her husband any more liquor,
and that the principal offender had refused
to stop selling to him. General Dow agreed
to see the saloon keeper and ask him if he
would not reconsider his decision.
This man." said General Dow, treated
me with scant courtesy. He said that ne
paid his money to the city for the privilege
of selling liquor, and that he would continue
to sell it to the man under consideration as
long as he had money to pay for it, 1t made
no difference to him, he said, what became
of the mans family; that part of it was
were possible l would stop the sale of liquor
in the State of Maine, not only by him, but
by everybody else, and / started out right
there and then to do it.
Il began making temperance speeches,
and l not only made them at home, here in
addressing the people on the subject and
getting recruits to aid me in the crusade.
By the following year 1851, we had aroused
such public feeling on the matter in the
State that two days before the Legislature
adjourned we Went to Augusta with pro
hibtory bill and got it passed by both
vote of Is to 10 and the House by vote
of S6 TO 40. l did not relax my efforts in
the matter and although many attempts
were made to have the law repealed they
We're thwarted and in 1888, after the
people had had nearly thirty-threa years
of mind to vote for prohibitory amend
ment to the State Cons titution, and they
carried it by majority of 47O75. In 1888
become so unsavOry that the amendment
to the Constitution could be repealed, and
the Democrats adopted a liquor policy in
'the state election. This election was for the
purpose of choosing thirty-one senators and
151 representatives to the State Legislature.
The Democrat is failed to elect single sena-
tor and succeeded in electing but five rep
reSentatiVeS.
Before the prohibitory law WAS enacted
in 1851 there were thirty-five disllleries in
Maine, and of these two were located in
Portland. Now there is not a distllery or
brewery in the entire State. Such liquor as
comes into the State has to be smuggled
in. 1t is not too much to say that not one
hundredth as much liquor is sold in the
State of Maine as there was before the pro-
hibitory law went into effect and this, too,
law is defective in many ways, for when
man is convicted of selling liquor the judges
have considerable latitude in imposing SEN
tence. and doubt there are some judges
on the bench who have been elected by the
liquor influence for the very purpose or in
flicting light fines or suspendlng sentences.
AS ! drew the original law. the judges had
no discretion in the matter, but Were
obliged to sentence a convicted rumSeller to
both fine and imprisonment. Before the pro-
hbitory law went into effect the State of
Maine was the poorest State I'm the Union
We now have over 100000 population, and
although as regards population Ohio and
Illinois are over five times as large as we
are. we have twice as many savings banks
as these two States and If the money in
the savings banks in all three of the States
Ohio would receive S. in Illinois $S while
in Maine he would receive about $50 Pro-
hibition is winning all the time and the
outlook in this State is most hODeful' -