Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-01-09

the agency law, which, under the most
favorable conditions is bound to prove
economically bad, morally wrong and
socially Unfit.
The State liquor commissioner Is ap-
pointed by the governor and receives a
salary of $500. All expenses Of his Of
fee including a clerk. who receives a
salary of $1,000. arc paid by the State.
The commissioner buys or is supposed
70 buy all liquors which he dispenses to
the several liquor agencies. Section Is
of Chapter 90 of the revised statutes
reads in part as follows:
THE commissioner shall keep in stock
at all times in his said place of bus
hess, a sufficient stock of liquors to
supply the demands of all duly author
lied town and city agencies of this State
for not exceeding two months, and all
such agencies shall be supplied from
such stock, so kept at his said place Of
business Ill this State, and in no other
source and in no other matter"
According to the testimony. both of
Commissioner Leavitt and Charles
Whitney, the latter representing the
liquor firm of George F. Hewitt & Co,
the liquor commissioner does not pur-
chase his stock for the State.
He does not keep such a stock to be
supplied to various town and city
agencies. Rather he permits agents
of certain liquor firms to drum the
trade, not from himself, but from the
local agents or town and city officials.
AS result of such solicitations orders
are set to the commissioners office
naming particular brands Of liquors
and often indicating the firm to be
patronized. Mr.. Whitney has testified
that he has done this business
generally holding his trade with
majority of liquor agencies for about
20 years. No considerable amount Of
liquor is purchased by the COM
missioner except in the manner stated.
The principal duty of his Office seems
to be to approve these orders and
forward them to the wholesaler The
commissioner has but an Indifferent
conception of his duties as a state
official. He renders no service to the
State in any sense commensurate with
the salary he receives, nor does he
appear to have any grasp of any de-
tails Of the business of which he Is
officially the head.
On his testimony, Mr. Leavitt does
nothing to protect the State as to the
prices or quality of the liquor dis
penscd. He does not know why he
pays 81 for one brand of whiskey or 50
for another brand nor whether the
liquors which he supplies to the
agencies is as good as can be bought
for the prices charged. He does not go
into the market and determine for
himself whether the interest of the
State can be best served by purchases
made by himself direct. He has never
consulted wholesale houses nor taken
Il step to satisfy himself that he was
not being imposed on or was doing
we'll by the State in continuing the
reprehensib'e practice of approving
orders obtained by liquor solicitors.
He appears as ignorant Of the business,
to which he has given six years Of
official life as a child is innocent of
transgression. His denial of knOwl-
edge of ordinary trade discounts in the
liquor business is self condemnatory.
During his whole term of office. in
which he has dispensed nearly three
quarters of a million dollars of liquor.
not once has he awaited himself of the
ordinary 10 per cent. or Is per cent.
discount which the committee is adj
vised wholesale liquor houses allow
the trade. 1t is conservative state
mcnt that, during his term of office, he
has lost to the State on this account
alone more than 100000. Further we
believe that 1t is fact susceptible of
proof that prices of liquors dispensed
to town and city liquor agencies are
cxorbitant The commissioner testi-
fled that he charges only the prices he
pays. If this is true, we are satisfied
that he pays more for his stock, though
a purchaser to an amount exceeding
100000 a year, than the small retailer
WHO buys a supply for the saloon trade.
We are satisfied that much Of the bulk
whiskey, for which the local agents
pay 81 a gallon, can be duplicated in
the market for from 1925 to $2.75.
1t is not strange that the fact invites
comment that the firm of George +.
Hewitt & Co. would have held
practical monopoly of the agency trade
for 20 years. And is 1t not suggestive
of question just why the present COM
missioner and his immediate predeces-
sors have fallen in with the way Of
thinking and the method of business
Of this particular liquor firm? Indeed.
is it too much to say that 1t should
occur to the liquor commissioner to
investigate for himself to see if he is
doing as well with Hewitt & Co. or
with Reuben Ring & Co. as he might
do with other well known liquor firms?
Last year the agency business in
volving purchase of 100000 was so
divided that Hewitt & Co, and Reuben
Ring & Co., sold to the State about 80
per cent of the total amount. OF this
80 per cent, Hewitt & Co.. sold about
70 per cent. Who are George F.
Hewitt & Co, and Reuben Ring & Co,
that either firm or both should be
given monopoly Of the liquor sold to
the state of Maine? Especially is the
question permanent when it is re-
membered that their prices are exorb-
tant and that. on the testimony of
Messers Leavitt and Whitney, though
practically controlling the trade of the
State, they do not allow the ordinary
discount which the average SALOON
keeper knows enough to demand and
is shrewd enough to get.
CONTINUED On Page Sixteen.)