Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1903-01-28
q Correspondence.
Enforcement in Hancock Co-nty.
SOUTHWEST HARBoR, jan. %, OS

law. With Rev. Mr.. Hanscom, / am
sntisfi. for the present TO see the law en-
forced without questioning too closely
the motives in our de facto sheriffs sp
parent conversion. For the practical end
In view, 1t matters not whether he has
been keeping bis ear to the ground, or
has listened to still small voice from
above.
But 1t is important that the people OF
whei her this new movement Is political
bluff, an honest attempt at enforcement
for endorsements sake, or a sincere effort
for prohibition. IL it is designed to make
the law odious With view to it's repeal,
the people must be deciding whether it
j. prohibition they want or some other
system.
read with interest in recent issue OF
THE AMERICAN the report OF sermon ad-
vocsting enforcement for the sake OF en-
forcement, but expressing preference
for local option as against State prohibit
ton. With the former position ! quite
agree, but take opposite ground from the
author in his preference for local option.
. 1t is true that able nen of uDdoubted
loyalty to the cause of temperance are
opposed to the probibitory law, and that
several states have discarded 1t in favor
OF some other system. 1t is possible that
Vermont may follow their example.
Nevertheless, believe that prohibition is
the only thorough going and logically
sensible method of dealing with the
saloon, and that Maine would make a
serious mistake in recedipg from It's
advanced position. The following are
some OF my reasons:
/. Personal experience. / have had a
residence for considerable periods In the
city of Newton, Macs, one OF the clean
est and highest-toned communities In
that state, where, under the local option
law, the city has gone for no-license con-
tinaously as far back as that system has
been known; in a country town In New
York state under the high license law,
known as the Raines law, where the town
In question was carried each year for no.
license; and now for over Q year and
half in q country town under the pro-
hibitory law of Maine.
In neither Of these places have ever
gone out of my way to look for the effects
Of liquor, or to avoid the knowledge OF
1t. What l have seen is only what has
confronted me in the natural course of
things. Think have been equally &C.
tive aud on the street in all three places.
What, then, have / seen? In the no.
license city OF Newton, where the law
against saloons is rigidly enforced and
drug stores closely watched, it used to be
not an uncommon thing to see man
silly drunk. or fighting drunk or dead
drunk put off the Boston train, or COM
ing Keeling home from the neighboring
town OF Wsltham.
The city authorities had no power to
reach the cause. They could only care
for the case after it came into their terri
tory. In the country town in New York
l used, occasionally, see man lying dead
drunk in the gutter, or on some neig h bor-
ing lawn j, in broad daylight, his liquor
imported from some license town over
which the local authorities had no con-
troll.
Here In fremont there is some drink
ing, owing to a lax enforcement OF the
law in this and neighboring towns, but 1t
is by no means so common, nor so obtru-
live In its results, as have seen 1t under
high license in New York and local op-
tion in Massachusetts.
2. The prohibitionist believes in
local option quite as much as the So called
local optionist. He differs from him
only as to the size OF the local unit to be
recognized in Temperance legislation.
Where the latter would have 1t the town
or city, the prohibtionist would make 1t
the state or the nation.
Now the advocate OF local option can
give no moral or logical reason for pro-
hibiting the saloon in a city or town
that does not apply with equal force to
the smaller unit of the ward or the larger
unit of the state. II the saloon is de-
moralizing influence in one town, it is
equally so in every other town, aud In the
state at large. 1. it is difficult to enforce
the law when supported by only a small
or Indifferent majority in the state, 1t is
equally difficult to enforce it under local
option wherever no-iicense commands
only small majority in the town.
And IL we concede that neither in town
nor state is law to have any force unless
the maj Drity in its favor far exceeds a
mere majority, then we should revise our
definition Of democratic government, and
be making up our minds how large pro-
portionately majority must be to have
its will respected and its officers obey its
mandate.
But In respect to prohibition In Maine,
the majority has at every time been so
overwhelming that there seems to be no
need Of raising this question or of resub-
mitting the law. What we need Is officers
who will do their sworn duty, and the
people of Hancock county will do ell to
have Hanscom In reserve for every cleo
ton. When We want powder we want
romdar. and NOT cnr,a bird ~ nlau tb,t