Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1911-08-03
PROHIBITION A SAFEGUARD.
People Should Not Turn Over Their Law
Makers to Corruption Of Unscrupu-
lous Outside Interests.

or conditions. but rather to prevent
their aggravation through granting, by
subsequent legislation. legal authorize
ton and sanction to a traffic universal
~ regarded as a great contributory
cause Of them. And that is consistent
with the fact that the people had seer
that in two periods of license. one pc
fore and one after prohibition. cohdl-
tons in every particular were muen
worse than in the intervening period
when the traffic was prohibited.
Prohibitory or PernissiVe?
Legislation bearing upon the exist
ence of the liquor traffic must either
be prohibitory or perm1sslVe' Afe
the only practical effect of an abroga-
ton of the constitutional provision en-
Joining the former. would be to per-
| init the Legislature. for reasons good
or bad. to enact the latter. Taking
that into consideration. with the fact
| that a great liquor producing and sell
| ing trust has established headquarters
here and is organizing and financing
the movement for the abrogaton If
the amendment, it seems as reasonable
as it is simple, to say that the issue
before the people of the State is pro
hibition or license" At any rate it
will be difficult to make ii appear
, otherwise to plain commonplace cfti-
zens like myself.
am aware that some prominent
citizens like the author of the letter
| before me. hold to another view And
| know that many who are favorable
| n linpnEa
| in disseminating the idea that were
| the constitutional provision abrogated.
| there would be no danger of license.
So we are told. the citi2ans of ancient
Troy thought until too late, that their
! gift horse from the Greeks contained
nothing dangerous. But many of us
| believe that the gift of freedom of
action which the American Brewers
| Association is spending its thousands
to provide for us, is pregnant with
the license, which it wants by way of
| legislation.
| | quote from the letter:
Il voted against the adoption of
| the so-called 'prohibitory amend
| ment' TO the constitution when il
was adopted in 1884, because | did
not believe that provisions such
as ii contains should be embodied
in the Constitution of the State"
We'll for that or other reasons.
over 23.0oo others voted as our friend
did, but think. leaving him and me
out of the matter. that there was as
much desire to act wisely and as much
intelligence to enable them so to do.
embodied in the more than 10000 vot-
ers who voted otherwise as was pos
| sessed by the twenty thousand odd.
who voted with him. However, that
NAV be the question whether proEi-
sions such as il contains should be
embodied in the Constitution of the
State. was then passed upon By the
court of last resort. the same tribunal
that has it again under consideration.
And the American Brewers Associa-
tion is in the State trying to get the
ear of the court.
Consider Other Grimes.
The letter reads the provisions the
amendment contains.
Are as much out of place in
the organic law as would be a pro-
vision reciting that the crimes of
murder, burglary and arson are
and forever shall be prohibited in
the State. and that the Legisla-
ture shall enact laws with suitable
penalties for their suppression"
That is a matter of opinion. and
doubtless our authors is more salts
factory to himself and to many others.
any one of the crimes of murder. bur
been licensed Suppose further. that
after years of discussion, it had been
prohibited by law. despite the efforts
of many able advocates of the crime to
continue its legal authorization. Ina
CINE again that later. legislature.
elected on a pledge to enact a suitable
prohibitory" law applying to It, had
actually licensed the crime. and sup
pose that. after that. "the people
through their representatives. in the
Legislature" had re-enacted a prohi-
hition of it. Suppose further. that a
great wealthy organization like the
American Brewers Association. hay
ing large pecuniary interest in the
propagation and commission of the
crime, was constantly on the alert. in
citing a great agitation and was ready
to spend thousands of dollars to secure
a return to licensing the crime, when
ever a favorable opportunity should +
fer. Then and under such circum-
stances. one of the crimes he refers 20
would be in a position similar to that
of the liquor traffic. so threatening
the public veal that many people.
perhaps he would be one of them.
would seek through a constitutional
provision. to obtain ample notice of
any attempt to secure legislative ac-
ton licensing that crime. And ve~y
likely that provision would be in form
quite similar to that he now criticizas
BY the undisputed testimony of those
who ought to know, the liquor traffic
has been proven to be a prolific source
of murder burglary and arson and
the rest of the long catalogue of
crimes and misdemeanors, both large
and small. which it is the province of
law to prevent And many of the
plain people like myself, think there
is no provision more properly placed in
the constitution than an insistence
upon the prohibition of such a crime
producing crime as is embodied in a
Traffic or system that tends To Under