Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-03-19

square miles, exactly, from Mr.. Swett's
statement. that of the cleared land in
| Maine the population 3,142,322. In
! the Maine group there We're 35.5 people
I to the square mile, and 321 people in
| the Massachusetts group. But these
| inequalities are not considered. He
! shows the total increase in value of
i manufactured products in the Maine
| group fo1i 20 years to be $11S.532, 421,
and in the Massachusetts group $751;
| 101 30f, and charges the difference to
l prohibition. But had he considered
1.-THE entire manufactured product in the
1.-TWO groups cinI 1880 and given the per
cent of increase as shown by the CEN
sus of 1900, he would have shown that
the Maine, or prohibition. group in
tcreased 81 per cent, the Massachusetts
group 20 per cent; but from 1890 TO
1900 the Maine group increased So per
cent. and the Massachusetts group
only % per cent, and, prohibition has
| Is per cent. increase over license in
manufactured product.
| But neither prohibition nor license
alone determine the increase of manu-
! featured products. The per cent. of
1 increase in manufactured products in
| Maine from 1890 to 1900 was SO per
| cent. in Massachusetts 16 per cent
| This large growth over Massachusetts
| was due not to prohibition but because
| the extension of railroads during that
time made possible the great industries
at Rumford Falls Riley Millinocket
Ashland and other Maine points.
| Wooden goods ceased to be made at Sc
bee, not because of prohibition, but be-
cause too long haul to railroad
| made it Improbable Iron is no longer
mined at Katahdin Iron Works and
| Pembroke, not because of prohibition
| but because it ceased to be profitable
| in competition with localities where
coal and iron are found altogether.
| 1t is significant that of the figures Civ
ell by the gentleman prove anything,
| they prove the value of prohibition,
| rether than license to the increase of
| manufactured products.
But it is more significant that the pro-
| pretors of the manufacturing plants ut
Island Falls will not permit a rumship 10
| exist there and the owners of Millinocket
and Of Rumford Falls, including Hugh
| Chisholm and Hon. Waldo Pettepgill, III
| order to secure themselves against posSi-
| bic license in these centerS. deed ali land
| with the condition written in the deed
| that the land snail return To the original
| owner If liquor is sold in premises de
| scribed therein: and all far-seelng owners
| OF large manufacturing plants are taking
| tic
| But Cambridge Mass. is fine center
| for the study OF the comparative effect of
| license and prohibition From lSla-lSy5
! this city had license and since II has had
no. license. In its license decade it in
| creased in population II so and in the first
| no license decade 2l,9S5-nearly double. 1t
built 1916 houses in the 10 saloon Years
| and 3325 in the 10 saloonlcs1 years Its
| valuation shrank S. l9O.7& in The IL license
and gained So, t02, o30 in the 10 no-license
! years. In the license years the annual
| average increase in savings bank deposits
was s15,' SOB 70, and during the 10 no license
years the annual net increase vas $685..
50i. AZ. and the official analysis of the de
poSts shows thar more than two-thrds
| Of these sums We're Of 500 or less; While
| the deposits of the East Cambridge SaT
| rgs Bank located in the center of the in
| duStrial population, have increased more
| than any other bank. and in 1888 the de-
| posts were averaging nearly four times
| the rate of license years.
| This certainly is a lair illustration OF
the. advantages Of prohibition over license 1
| something about the blighting effort of
prohibition in his own city, Portland
| What does he say of his city, That he
haU Sceli during enforcement young men
| of il and |, years of age drinking from
| pocket TASKS, and that from his window.
Yes, and ] saw during the yeaIs of *il TIT
license in that city boys OF 10 and 70 years
| Of age drunk on the Wharvcs, and the
| training at that time has DEVELOPED themI
into the ID and lI-year-oid drinkers OF
| today.
| But why did he not dispute the state
ment 50 often made by Sheriff Pearson
as to the marked improvement OF all re- |
| tail business in Portland during enforce
| nlcnt? The facts We're against him. WHY |
dio he not tell us of the discomfort and
| restlessness among the people Of his city
| he not explain the defeat of eX-Sheritf
Plummer and the election by the, iargesl |
| vote given representative from that city |
of thoroush-going prohioitionist, in
| Plummers place? Why did he not explain
the ,leieat Of his partys candidate for |
sheriff and the election of County Attur- |
above his party vote? |
He knew Portland conditions ard Port |
| land contentment with prohibition too well |
! to venture on such a course.
| He next turns his attention TO the in |
| crease in drunkenness in his own city and
| in the State. The rigures given are cor
rect had given them in addresses all
| over Maine and had printed them in |
| little tractlet entitled Whittier
drunkenness in Cumberland county with
| those i'll Penobscot and strikes balance |
| in the lattcr's favor. He says that 1861
| under Sheriff Parsons enforcement in
| Cumberland county and only 366 were
committed to jail in practically high IL |
those arrested in Portland were commit |
| ted to Jail while only one-third of such |
| arrests in Bangor were committed to jail |
| in Pehobscot county. Mr.. SWEET said III |
a previous table, 1888 were arrested for
| drunkenness in Portland in 1862. and 1861 |
were committed to Jail iii Cumberland
| county.
But Rev. Mr.. Cutler in a recent sermon |
said 1914 were arrested for drunkenness
| in Bangor III 1892. and only 366 were com |
mitt2d to Jail IN that entire roulty for
| drunkenness. says Mr. SWEET.
| 1t is we'll now TO ina .iTe ii the Portland |
| police arrested as large percentage Of
| persons seen drunk on the streets of Port |
| land from 1895 to 1900 from 1900 10 11e?
| And did Bangor police arrest 3s large |
proportion Of drunks on the streets of that |
| city as did the police of Portland in 1907"
| Who knows?
But in mis- sweet innocency the gentle /
! man from Portland uses tables covering
a period of 30 years to show the growth |
| of drunkenness, and assumes it a demon
| stration Of how prohibition promotes
| drunkenness In his blind zeal to damn
prohibition he compares the conditions IN
\ his own city from 1890 to l9Da under en- |
| forced prohibition to those in Bangor UNI
| der practically high license. Eut What
| did Portland have until Pearson was elect
| ed save during the term of Sheriff Cram
ana the administi alton If Mayor Deering,
| but high license? And what did Bidde-
| ford. Lewiston. Brunswick, Bath. indeed