Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1911-09-05
stirrinr raIk bv PROT. NIcbolIs.

Stirring Talk by Prof. NICHOLS.
/ Particularly because they had not bee
warned OF wat was In store for them
those who attended the prohibition
meeting In New Hall Tuesday evening
addressed by Professor j. A. Nicholls o
Boston, got treat much beyond thei
Expectations. His hearers almost unani
Imously declare that It was about tn
best OF nything they ever heard In tina
line. Professor Nichols talked with fir
and rapidity for about an hour. In tn
early part of his address some half dozsl
men, who were evidently not In sym
patty with his views, got up and wen
out, but the res. OF the audience hardly
moved, except for Q number of spon
taneous bursts of applause, while hi
was speaking.
For half an hour preceding the open
ing Of the meeting the Lumley Castle
Band played In the hall, and more thar
maintained the reputation which 1t hat
acquired under the leadership Of F. p
Knapp.
At s O'Clock the meeting was called te
order by Hon. James 8. Wright. A
number Of citizens occupied seats on the
stage, and them was fair audience In
the hall.
Mr.. Wright spent only few minutes
briefly explaining the four questions on
which the people will vote on the 18th
of September, and then introduced Pro-
lessor Nichols.
No attempt will be made to give even
a summary of the address, but only a
few of the points can be mentioned.
This is q tremendously important
election in Maine on the 18th of Septem-
Der. Important not only to Maine, but
also important in Its influence in other
states and other countries, and to the
world at large. II Maine takes a back.
ward step In this election, 1t will not
prevent, but it may delay the ultimate
triumph of the temperance movement.
Nobody says now that the liquor traffic
is a good thing. 1t is an evil. The
question Is as to the best way to deal
with 1t. The drink traffic fosters the
drink habit. The traffic should be under
the ban of the law.
The history OF prohibition In Maine
was given, with a readiness showing en-.
tire familiarity with the subject, up to
the adoption OF the prohibitory amend
ment in 1884, by majority OF $1,000.
Reasons advanced for the repeal were
briefly considered: First, that having q
prohibitory provision in the constitution
'enslaves' the voters. Instead of that,
said Professor Nichols, 1t Is the way the
voters keep the matter in their own
hands, and out of the reach of legisla-
lures and politicians. Second, the pro-
hibitory law has been violated. So 1t
has, flagrantly, no doubt. So has every
law the Almighty has made.
Then he took up the matter OF "regu-
lation" of the liquor traffic under the
local option law of Massachusetts,, which
is claimed by license advocates as the
best license law ever enacted, and his de-
scription of this regulation" was not
only Illuminating but amusing.
First, the law requires that every man
who has license must be of good moral
character, so every saloon keeper In
Massachusetts, is necessarily q good man.
After q while they discovered that
drunkenness was increasing, and they
decided that it was because men stood
up to the bar socially, and drank too
much. So the bars we're abolished by
law, and customers had to be served at
tables. Drunkenness still increased, and
they decided that men drank too much
because they sat down. So they abolish
ed the tables, and now saloon patrons
must stand up.
Drunkenness still increased, 30 they
provided by law that screens must be
abolished from the saloon windows.
Then they abolished the back doors of
the saloons. Then they increased the
size of the license fee, until now 1t is
from a minimum of $1,000 up to over
$4,000. Then as q further move they
limited the number of saloons. With
all these and numerous other measures
of regulation, drunkenness kept on In
creasing, until last year there were
Al, 1872 arrests for drunkenness in Boston
alone, and over $1,000 in Massachusetts,
both the largest figures ever recorded.
High license regulation Is humbug,
a fraud, delusion and snare.
The speaker then turned his attention
to the argument that license will stop
illegal selling, and gave few figures
bearing upon this, instancing the large
number OF search warrants issued against
illegal sellers in Boston. In Massachu-
setts last year, with less than 5000 IL
censes issued under the state law, over
5, 900 paid the United States tax as
liquor dealers.
Nor do the licensed dealers aid as
claimed In prosecuting the illegal
dealers. In the first place they don't
dare to. They are themselves violating
the provisions of their licenses, and they
don't dare to stir up prosecution.
furthermore, a large part of the Massa-
chusetts saloons are controlled by the
big breweries and distilleries, which sup.
ply not only the licensed dealers but the
unlicensed dealers with their goods.
Then there is the argument of revenue.
In Massachusetts, there is public
revenue of some over three millions from
liquor licenses. According to the re-
port of . special state commission on
the high cost of living, the actual public
expense caused by the liquor traffic is
not less than ten millions, aside from all
the private and individual cost and
misery.
The workings of local option were
illustrated by the case OF Cambridge
and Boston. For twenty-five years
Cam bridge has been "dry" city. YET
last year there were over 5000 arrests Of
Cambridge people for drunkenness In
license Boston, just across the river.
An eloquent appeal for Maine to gt
forward and not backward closed the
address.