Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-01-01

state that enforcement has been con-
tinued by the local authorities, but
that conditions are not entirely salts
factory on account of lack of unity
of action between the local authorities
and the sheriffs. -a-
In the vicinity of Togus in Kenne-
bee county the conditions have not
been altogether satisfactory, owing to
the conditions, which surround the
large number of soldiers at the
National Home. At Waterville, Au-
gusta and Gardiner enforcement at
times has been lax. but after investl-
eating conditions it was not thought
necessary to assume the prosecution
of the law and it was left to the local
authorities and sheriff. The COM
mission sent deputies to Lincoln
county on special request of the
sheriff. The deputies were also sent
to other places in the State. where
complaints were made, but action was
not deemed necessary.
The commission states that Dec. IL,
1906 a decision was announced by the
Supreme court, which materially
affe cted enforcement conditions in the
State. In the case of the American
Express Co. VS.. Iowa, the Unlted
States court decided that under the
Interstate commerce act the duty or
the carrier did not end until the de-
livery was made to the conslgnee ana
that until this was done liquors were
not subject to seizure under the state
law In accordance with this decision
officers have no authority tos search
for LIQUORS even if they are the pro-
perty of we'll known liquor sellers ana
understood to be intended for unlaw-
full sale by them, While they remain in
the freight house of the railroad or in
the possession of the company for
delivery to the individual to whom
they are consigned if such liquors
were shipped from a point out OF the
State for delivery to such consignee.
The State officials are simply power
less to deal with them under such
circumstances.
The result has been the opening up
of an entirely new phase of the liquor
business and to complicate seriously
the question of enforcement Numer-
Gus companies have come into exist
ence, whose real object is the unlawful
sale of liquors. The result of this is
that such express companies have be-
come distributors of liquor to people,
who buy them only for the purpose of
drinking. and to small establishments,
kitchen bar rooms and pocket-ped-
dlers Many Of these companies have
been raided.
During December of this year an
important decision has been received
from the law court. 1t is held that
liquors. which under the United
States pure food law are adulterated
or msbranded are not subjects of in
terState commerce and if intended for
unlawful sale are subject to seizure,
while in the hands of the carrier and
to forfeiture.
The commissioners make the fol-
lowing suggestions as to changes In
the enforcement law:
]. Express, companies organized I'M
der the laws of the State should forfeit
their charters upon conviction for vio-
!ation of the liquor law and should be
subject to investigation by the legal
department of the State and foreign
express companies guilty in the same
manner should be excluded from doing
business in the State.
2 Chapter 1876, section l of the re-
vised statutes should be amended at
east SO far as it affects sentence
against the liquor law. so that the SEN
ences prescribed by statute should be
imposed, and it should not be left al
the discretion OF the court to change
them.
=. The statutes of Kansas provide
that proceedings may be instituted by
the attorney general, county attorney
u any citizen of a county where q IL
lInr nuisance exists, in the name OF
the State to abate and enjoin the same
and that when judgment is rendered
in favor of the plaintiff the court shall
also render judgment for a reasonable
attorney fee against the defendant
which shall be taxed and collected a.
other costs therein, and when collected
paid 10 the attorney or attorneys Of
the plaintiff therein. our statute
should be amended to give similar
powers to the attorney general, to cit
liens and to the enforcement commits
sion.
I. If the conduct of liquor cases is
Left in charge of the county attorney
regardless of his attitude towards en-
for"emLnt an entire docket Of crimi-
nala may practically escape punish
mcnt We believe it should be the
luiy Of the court to see that the liquor
docket is fully and completely present
ed anl properly acted upon. and that
the court should deal with any county
attorney. who fails to attend to his
duty properly in this respect. While
it wonlu seem that this might be q
disaSrceaDe duty for the court, and
impose upon it a heavy burden it is
probable that the mere fact that the
""'lrt would assume such &, RESPONSE
bility and let it be understood that it
would do 50. would remove IN advance
any necessity OF actual interference.
Al the present time there are q
special enforcement deputies ON duty
as follows: Heber n. Allen, Jay; Max
inc Beaulieu, Lewiston: Orlando H
Brackett Starks; Ansel III. Briggs, Old
Town; john Fl. Bryant, Starks; Will
liam j. Caddy, ST. George: Percy j.
Clifford. Hampden; William j. Con-
way. Bath: Emerson II. Doughty,
Portland: Melvin L. Emerson Old
Town: Walter J. Fernald. Rockland: