The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1911-03-02
Prohibition in Maine.

Prohibition in Maine.
COLONEL FRED N. DOW, Portland, Me.
The writer of this article, a son of Neal
Dow, is leading citizen of Portland Maine
and President of the Casco National Bank of
| that city-Editors Union Signal.
Before this article will appear in print.
the Legislature of Maine, as now ap-
pears certain, will have voted resubmis-
sion. This will have been accomplished
by two-thirds of those acting upon the
question in both Houses voting to sub
! NIT proposition to the people to amend
the constitution of the State by abrogat-
ing what is known as the Prohibitory
amendment adopted in 1884 1t may be
noted, In passing, as not entirely with
out significance, that there were thou
sands of remonstrances against this ac-
ton, and not a single petition for it.
AS this result will be heralded far and
wide as reputation of prohibition in
the State Of its birth, it may be worth
while to learn how far facts warrant
such a claim. To this end glance at
the political history of prohibition in
Maine is desirable
Maine Law was enacted in 1851. In
1855, due, it was believed, in large meas
ure to the excitement incident to what
was known as ''the June riot'' Legis-
lature was elected pledged to repeal the
then existing intensified Maine law"
and to substitute Suitable Prohibi-
tory law In fulfillment of its pledge,
the Legislature, in the winter of 1856,
repealed the former, but, in violation of
its pledge, enacted a License law instead
of a suitable Prohibitory law" This
action was emphatically repudiated by
the people at the next fall election.
They returned to the Legislature only
five of the ninety-four legislators who
had voted for license.
In the winter of 1957-1959 the License
Law was repealed, Prohibitory law
was enacted, and special election was
ordered that the people might express a
choice between the ''Prohibitory law of
1858" and the License law of 1885,"
The former was preferred by vote of
%, S55 to 1912 for the latter. The oppc-
nents of prohibition, not satisfied with
that expression of the popular will, made
it an issue in the September election of
1858, but were beaten in the balloting.
The law of 1858, modified from time to
time, has remained to this day the basis
of the prohibitory legislation of the
State. Generally since that date, the
State convention of one of the two great
political parties, has endorsed prohibi-
ton, while that of the other has as fire.
quently condemned it. Generally the
former won at the polls, and on the one
occasion prior to this year, when the
latter party controlled the Legislature,
it made no attempt to repeal prohibition.
To guard against the possibility of
such repeal by Legislature elected up
on another issue, as was that now in ses-
sion, many desiring to keep the prohibi-
tory law favored an amendment of the
constitution. Accordingly, in the winter
Of 1S83-1S84 the Legislature, by vote of
twenty-five to two in the Senate, and
ninety-one to thirty-one in the House,
submitted to the people a prohibitory
| amendment to this constitution. This
was ratified by vote Of 70, 1888 yeas to
Z3,811 nays. In this connection it is in
! terestlng to note that the votes cast on
the same day for the Republican candi-
date for Governor, numbered 1888, and
for the Democratic candidate, So, SOB.
| This did not quiet the opposition. AL
most Immediately thereafter there was
talk of resubmissioD, and four years later
there was an unsuccessful attempt in the
Democratic State convention, to insert a
resubmission plank in its platform. In
1890, similar attempt was successful.
| And since that date every Democratic
State convention has declared for resub-
mission.
! Little progress, however, was made in
that direction until the fall of 1900. In
that year the Rev, Samuel F. Pearson
was elected sheriff of Cumberland county,
which includes the city Of Portland, upon
the party Prohibition ticket. The re-
mainder of the Republican ticket was
elected as usual. The election of Mr..
Pearson was due to general dissatisfac-
ton with the supposed relations existing
between the illicit liquor sellers and the
sheriff Office. 1t was believed by many
voters that those relations were corrupt.
On the other hand, the friends of former
sheriffs insisted that those officials had
given as thorough enforcement Of the
law as public sentiment would warrant.
The election of a Prohibition sheriff
pledged to enforcement, would seem tc
negative that view.
The defeat of the Republican candidate
for sheriff in Cumberland county anC
similar defections, though less marked,
in other counties, alarmed some of the
Republican leaders. Within two or three
days after Pearson's election, the Their
chairman of the Republican committee
through an authorized interview advo
eating it, breathed into resubmissior
some vitality. / was absent from home
at the time, but upon learning through
the press the next day what the State
chairman had said, wired signed edi
torial to The Evening Express, opposing
the position taken by him. l had beer
recently chairman Of the Republican
State committee and was fairly vel
known through the State. That editoria
made it evident that resubmission woule
be vigorously opposed. The position
taken by the State chairman naturally
encouraged the opponents of prohibition