Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1907-03-14
MAINE LEGISLATURE.
CONTINUED from Page Seven.)

went 1artner even imam our own present.
law. In 1856 % sections we're added to tn }
law. Physicians and druggists could
compound medicines with spirituous Ii
quor but not to contain enough for a
drink All these statutes from 1S45 to 1856
were stringent laws. They comprised
over 100 sections, more than our pres
ent law. Now. what was the result az
that time? Men got liquor just as they
do now. People were dissatisfied after
they had tried all those laws. They
found then that they did not have a pro-
hibitory law, and in 1853 the present law
was passed. or the foundation of the
present law: and since that tire it has
been strengthened almost every year. In
the past % years there have been 48
amendments to the law and the prohibit
tory amendment to the constitution.
That has beer the history of prohibit
ton. In all those years there never has
been a year when the people of this
State thought that they had prohibition.
Talk about notification of law-it is not
the people who have nullified the law.
The law has nulified itself. And what
has been the result of it all? In 1888 the
historian, writing on the history of pro-
hibition. says the law had been a fall
ure. That is the recorded history of the
State of Maine in 1889. A more recent
authority is the Governor of the State
himself in his Portland speech last year
when he said that for the last % years
the law had been nullified. There is the
history of it after ali the time that has
passed and with all this amount of law
and prohibition, the historian in 1883 de-
claring that it had been a failure and
the Governor of the State after doing al
that was possible for mortal man to do.
saying that for :he last 81 years the law
had been nullifed. Isn't it time that
something else should be tried? 1t is
the part of wisdom to look for some
thing else and it is noticeable that at
different times we have had practically
the same law. Look over these laws and
you will be surprised to see how Sencr-
ations have taken the some laws that
have been repealed and considered of no
use in the past. This is true with regard
ITO the Sturris law. The State constabu
larry law was passed in 1861 and they
were given the same powers in almost
the exact language of the Sturgis law.
That only lasted one year; ut was plain
to the people that 1T could not be exc
cuted in that way and it was repealed.
II 1850 law was enacted like tliis, that
upon petition of thirty taxpayers in any
county where the laws were not being
appoint two or more constables to en-
force the law with like powers and duties
as sherifs and deputies. On simply the
10, 1f N;rty At hot
be done. Is there anyone here who can
say that it was ever possible to get thirty
people in town to ask for that? And
would you say that if it had been left
to the people OF the towns, they could
have got ten people to ask for Il SturgiS
commission? Now that law was on the
statute books from 1850 to 1901; and if
those who enacted the Sturgis law had
searched the statutes they would have
found that this one had existed ard that
ii was of no use and that it was impos-
SiDlc of enforcement. Then we had tho
Sturgis commission Of 1905 and that has
been q failure.
With that history in my mind I am
ready to vote to resubmit this matter
to the people. and with that in vicw
the people if this can be submitted to
them will bring about good results. l.
viii establish a better feeling whichever
way it goes, and men will unite to MAKE
Tie laws Of this State such that people
will be proud of them. (Applause)
Mr.. KENDALL of Bowdoinhan: Mr..
Speaker. The State of Maine is almos.
a unit against rcsubmission because
of the fact that prohibition in Maine
has been such q success in the rural
sections In the past 90 years the news
papers in Boston especially would Oc-
casionally send representative into
the State here to write up prohibition.
He would first strike Biddeford. and
we know what he would find there,
and then Portland. and then Gardiner,
Augusta, Watervillc ana Bangor, and
with the material that he would pI
able to get in favor Of the failure of
prohibition he would start for home,
and that same routine would be fol-
lowed year after year. without any in
VcStigation Of the success of prohibit
ton in the rural portions Of tho State.
We have about 20 cities in Maine and
$50 towns. and it would seem as if the
towns ought to have something to say
in this connection. The conditions in
Bangor have been referred to. 1t must
not be forgotten that Bangor is the
centre Of a very large population. 1t is
a clearing house, distributing point.
IT is the largest city within five coun-
ties. 213.0OO people live within radius
of Bangor who call it their largest city.
If we kick violation of the law to tho
city, it is up to the city to kick it
somewhere else. The same is true of
Rumford Falls. The same thing APP
plies to all the rest of our cities.
The gentleman from BridEton asks
why we have any objection to submit
this question to the people. My an
swcr is that we have no right to sub
NIT Il moral question, and if the sale
of liquor is not n moral question, what
is? If this House should vote to resub-
nit how long do you suppose it would
be before the organized liquor inter-
cSts in New York city would know of
it? And If we throw down the bars
what is going to be the result? Demon
alization. corruption, every purchasable
vote in the State is going To be bought.
Now for fifty years we have talked to