Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1908-09-12

was 40, but adds, in large type, that
under Democratic administration in
1907 there were lis commitments.
This statement is made with the evil
dent intention of leading the temper
ance people of this county to believe
that under Mr.. Plaisted, In his sue
cessful administration of the liquor af-
fairs in this county, mas punished
twice the number of violators of the
law by Jail sentences than his prede-
cessors did during their term Of office.
Is it true? And if true. did Mr.. Plais-
ted have anything to do with those
commitments?
In the first place, let me call your
attention to the fact that commit
ments don't mean jail sentences. A
man who is arrested on a complaint
and warrant may be committed to jail
before his trial. If there were several
complaints for single sale and he was
committed to Jail on them. there
would be Just as many commitments
on the records of the sheriff as there
We're complaints, although the man
was put in Jail only once. Now. If he
is taken out of Jail for his trial and Is
convicted on several of these COM
plants and is sentenced to Jail, there
would be just as many more commit
ments as there were convictions, so
you can readily see that it is very
easy for Mr. Plaisted, if he were so
inclined, to tell a half truth in con-
nection with this matter and thus de-
ceive the public by making them be-
lieve in his aggressive enforcement OF
the prohibitory law in this county,
that all commitments were Jail SEN
fences.
What are the actual facts taken from
the records of courts? I will tell you.
In 1907 there were AZ commitments to
jail from the superior court under sem
tence for violation of the prohibitory
law and six of those commitments
were on indictments found by Count!
Attorney Leigh in 1906 ano
tried out by County Attorney Leigh
and convictions obtained by MN
50 the sum total of all mittlmuses
issued against violators of the liquor
law by the superior court in 1906 was
46 This number should be further
reduced if we count the individuals IN
stead of the number of indictments to
base our figures upon, because In many
instances the same party was commit
ted to iail on different indictments at
the same term and mlttimus was
was issued against him on each indlct-
ment Further, these mittimuses
don't indicate that they all meant jail
sentences. On the contrary, a large
part of them carried alternative SEN
fences or a fine, and in case the hne
was not paid. Jail. Mr.. Plaisted does
not tell us how many paid their tines
after they went to JAIL but ! know
many of them did.
Now look at this claim in dlffer-
ent light. What had Mr.. Plalsted &c
do with the committal or sentence OF
these men? Was it Mr. Plaisted who
sentenced them to Jail? Indeed 1t was
not. The facts We're presented to the
grand Jury and County Attorney Beant
tried with his usual ability and hon.
esty the cases and the convictions
were secured, and it was left with the
court what form of sentence should
be given. | have yet to hear of a sim
gle instance where Mr.. Plaisted asked
the court to give a Jail sentence in
stead of fine.
If these figures are given to sho"
MS zeal cIlloItiA6 tAiN ~
law, l would like to call your attention
to one fact which seems to me to prove
more clearly the quality of this zeal,
than does the fact that an unusua
number of commitments occurred
during Mr.. Plaisted's administration.
Every saloon keeper is Obliged u
paw a license to the United States for
the privilege of being retail liquor
dealer and every one of these dealers
in Maine and Kennebec county has ms
name on the records OF the UniteC
States revenue department in Ports
mouth, N. II. A copy of those records
may be used before a grand jury ana
has always been regarded sufflclent
testimony to procure an indictment
against any one who has such a IL
cense in the State of Maine. during
the year 1907 there were 80 different
individuals holding these licenses in
Kennebec county as appears from
these United states records, and SO OF
them were never indicted or punished
as violators of the liquor law. why
was this discrimination? The sherlffs
who proceeded Mr. Plaisted always
laid on the county attorneys desk an
attested copy of those licenses and the
county attorney invariably secured
through the grand jury an indictment
against these individuals. Couldn't
Mr.. plaisted have done the same? And
wouldn't he have done the same II he
had zealously enforced the prohibitory
law in this county? His acts speak
far louder than this pasteboard which
he has issued.
He says that the Republican candi-
date. Mr.. Getchell, is now patting the
saloon keeper on the back and telling
him that he will be all right
if the Republicans win. Mr.
Plaisted apparently need not unbend
or relax his dignified pose far
enough to do this-every salo"nkeepe1
knows apparently where Mr.. Pla1sted
stands without this "patting on the Shout
ders" More than this, the open saloons
in every city in this county speak OF his
zeal as an enforcer of the prohibtory
law.
Further in his pasteboard announce
ment he says, as sheriff, he has turned
into the county in the year 1907 Sf3s'
against an average amount for the 10 pre-
ceding years of the Republican admins
tration of slO15 turned in by the Republic
can sheriff. or $685. turned in by Sherin