The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-05-26
PROHIBITION IN MAINE.
Evidence Shows That Liquor Selling
Business Is Not Restricted.

Last November, at a meeting of citizens
of Auburn and Lewiston, Me, committee
was appointed TO investigate the methods
employed by the officials in enfcrc-
ing the prohbitory liquor law in the two
cities and in Adroscoggin county. In ITS
report the committee says. in part:
- 1--WE have found that the sheriff
and his deputies are tender-hearted, and
have no desire TO prosecute any one; that
they do not want to make any liquor seller
feel that he has been singled out Tor the
laws assaults, but that it is their hXed
policy to treat all about alike; to RAID
them at irregular intervals and secure
evidence against them where possible SO
that a large number of them shat be pre-
scented for trial at each term of court.
Meantime. and all the time, with
almost no exception, the business OF liquor
selling goes on. While the liquor dealer
is facing the judge in court to receive ms
sentence for violating the law of the state
his place of business is open and his bar
keepers are as busy as usual
1.-THE officers claim that the methods
they pursue is restricting the business and
closing some places. All the evidence your
committee has been able to gather, after
most painstaking investigation, goes to
show that the business of liquor selling is
not being restricted in Androscoggin coun-
ty; that the number of places where liquor
within the past year new places have been
opened. Still further, 1t is plain that the
business is not being driven into the dark.
Liquor selling is done openly, and bars,
with their furnishings of glasses and bot
ties may be seen from the street.
II have taken the names of fifty of the
liquor sellers of Lewiston. nearly all of
whom have been in business number of
years. OF these fifty the names of thirty
nine appear on the court docket at least
once, many of them more than once, for
the four terms of court beginning in Janu-
airy, 1899. Against these thirty-nine law
breakers there were, during the four terms
of court, 1872 complaints and indictments:
eighy-three of these were nolle pressed,
seventeen were assigned to the special
docket and thirteen continued for sem
tence. which means, to all intents and
purposes, that lib of these complaints and
indictments were brushed aside. This
leaves sixty-nine cases against the thirty
nine men during the four terms of court.
or an average of somewhat less than two
counts against each individual for that
length of time.
THE average total fine imposed upon
these thirty-nine men under these sixty
nine cases during these four terms of
court was 1924, and every one of the
thirty-nine, with one exception Che is in
jaiD, Is in business today, and. so far
we can learn, had never been out of bust
ness for day during the time covered by
these calculations.
my attention has been repeatedly called
to the fact that local officers after max
ing raids and securing in some cases large
quantities of liquor, have found the grand
jury under some circumstances unwilling
TO grant an indictment; and the case after
passing through the municipal court, has
been dropped and the liquors returned.
Equally suggestive is the fact that bust
ness men, men of influence in the county.
politically, socially, and. in some cases,
l am led to believe relisiousy, stand in
the way of the laws enforcement; stand
IN the way even of the attempts which
are made to enforce 1t, and not infrequent-
ly. by personal solicitation, seek to turn
the officers from the plain path of their
official duties. because, forsooth, interfer-
ence with certain liquor dealers would be
detrimental to business
can we blame the officers for regard
Ing such advice as an indication of a pre-
Vailing sentiment sufficiently strong to
warrant them in regulating their official
conduct by it?"-Boston Herald.