Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1911-07-18

NOR, customers for the butcher. the
baker. boot and shoe dealers and all
the load tradesmen. 1t means also
more taxable property to add To the
city revenue.
The returns of the savings banks
spuplx another test of the prosperity
lnf The city under no license condi-
tions. 1t is particularly searching
test. if applied with reference To 1924,
for taat was Il year when many wage
Farmers being out of employment.
were not only unable to add to the
money laid by for possible emergen-
clos. but were compelled to draw upon
that which had been already laid by
| If the deposits remained about sta
tionarv during that year of panic and
| priv alton il would be all that could
reasonably be expected but there was
actually o net increase in the depus-
its IN Cambridge savings banks in the
wear ending October Fl. 1894. amount
ing to 1929. 915.47. and the total de-
pesits on that date aggregated $9,5aS,-
| Don a. the largest total in the history
of the city, and that Was In the panic
| wear Of 1894. The deposits were larger
in 1894 by more than $60U,00 than they
were in 1886 the last year of license.
Another Important Question.
Another question OF Importance Is
as to the effect of nd-lcense upon local
trade. That is fair question, and an
| important one. 1t was freely predicted
AZ the beginning that Cambridge
| tradesmen would suffer by reason of
the closing of the saloons. 1t was
argued that many persons would go
to Boston for liquor and while there
would buy their family supplies. The
assertion seemed plausible, and the
matter was regarded with misgivings
b. some who were ready to try the ex-
| pertinent. The writer continues:
| Last December there was good deal
| of stir over the announcement that
| business mems movement against no
| license was being organized. Inc reports
| were never very clear as to where the
meetings were held or VINO attended
them. but soon letter written by the pro-
meters of the movement 10 Boston prev
ers appealing for funds fell INTO me ha nos
| and was printed in fac-simile IN thai
ipaper II disclosed The fact that local
politician of dubious affiliations ana Two
men who We're in no way ldenuhed with
| business interests were behind the enter
/ prise When their eXertions materlallZed
/ in a poster denouncng no-hcense that
| appeal was followed by 90 SlShat ufes.
IOf these signers the names OF onlF ID
! could be found in the Cambridge dlrec-
/ tory the others being purely hetitlous:
land of those discoVerahle in the directory
/ only a few could fairly be described as
| business men. On the other mana, 90
| business men in all parts OF the cry.
Including practically all the representa-
tive men in the various departments OF
| trade and industry signed TINS state
| ment. THE undersigned. business men
of Cambridge believe that the no-heenSe
policy has promoted the material inter
ests of the city. and We hope for IT'S con-
| tinuance
Another point which remains to be
| considered is the record of arrests for
| drunkenness. OF this, the writer SAYS;
Cambridge is separated from Boston by
| only the length of bridge. TINS pfox-
| unity operates to a certain degree, as
| safety valve 1t is hardly 10 be denied
| that the problem of voting and enforcing
no-license is simpler in Cambridge thah
| it would be in a elty OF equal sHe ~
trufTianism We're pent up WITHOUT vent
save by explosion. This IS something
(which must in candor be consldefed III es-
ltimating results i'm Cambridge. But TINS
| Influence works in both directions. II
Cambridge citizens frequent Boston sa-
looms and figure in the Boston courts,
There is a reciprocal movement Inc ny
hires of arrests for drunkenness IN cam
bridge are swollen by Boston neDflat
who get upon the electric cars IN lheil
Transit through Boston. ana are taken ~
custody by Cambridge officers when they
| become obnoxious. out OF 1913 atftsts
for drunkenness in Cambridge IN 1871 not
less than 7S3 We're of non-residents, me
advocates of no-license III Cdnlpflase
meyer have attached much Importance 70
The record of arrests for drunkenness. II
has been assumed that ,lle uii iS ,ot 10
going to Boston for liquor would not De
| suficient TO deter confirmed lneprlates,
who are the men who chlefly Esufe ia .lls
court records The aim in view mas oeeii
| to keep the temptation OF the open ia
loon oit of the way of the young, 81
Workingmen, and of men VINO are ttStls
TO reform. But even at inns point, ~ ~
leomnarison is made between Cambridge
under no-lfcense and cities OF approx
jmately the same population unusf Ileei iNSI
the former policy is Vindlcattu. III 1917
i'paer license and Cambridge under no.
license In II months of that year there
Iwere S32 arrests for drunkenness IN AIN ,eao
bridge In five months there were 1873
ARRESTS for drunkenness in worcester; OF
more than twice as many arrests ~ 80
than half the time. In LoWeli, IN nv Nv.
months of that year, there we1e Iiso al :
tfroas as many arrests in less than half
the time.
What Catholic Priests Said.
In the strongest testimony OF the ar
oument for the benefit of prohibition
in the city Of Cambridge. is that from
Catholic priests, whose pastoral work
carried them into the homes of the
poor. and is of especial value In
published letter. the Rev. Thomas w.
Sculiy, pastor of st. Mary's Annuncia-
ton church. in Cambridgeport, pre-
scented a comparative statement SHOW
ing that the South Boston Catholic
parishes spend annually for the sup
port of the poor nearly three times as
much as is spent by the Cambridge
parishes. Rev. Scully added this bit
of personal testimony:
1.-THE sick-eall register of my parish
tells the important fact that the siek-list