Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1912-03-25

granted a local option Now, is That
a fair view of the situation?
Here we are in a country in which
there are IS states, and as / recollect
there are but SIX states in our Union
that have a prohibitory law, so-called;
all the other states do not There is
not Il country in the world but that reg
ulates the liquor traffic. our own coun-
try, the United States, permits its sale
and grants tax license therefor. Only
| six of our states retain the law: some
! have tried it Tor years and have aban-
| doned il. Is it in view of the changed
| conditions that we find in the United
| States, the abandonment of the plan
! that existed for so many years in this
/ State--iS it a fact that i'm adopting a
| different policy we are out of line with
other people? How can you regulate
/ the traffic? If we could draw a line
arounu the State and keep from com
| ing within its borders Intoxicating
| liquors, why gentlemen, that would be
/ the best thing for mankind if you could
do it. The highest courts of our coun-
try our Supreme Court at Washington
| and the court of our own State, follow
ing the decision of the Supreme Court
| at Washington, admits to come within
| the DOfuerS OF the oldIe through tile
| Interstate Commerce Law intoxicating
liquors of any kind from other states,
and they cannot be interfered with and
they cannot be seized until they are de-
| liVered to the consignee.
l might answer the distinguished
| gentleman from Houlton that in the
| times that he refers to, when the Stur-
| gis Law was in operation. and it IS to
that that he pins his faith in the en-
| forcement line, that at that time the
officers could seize at the station liquors
hat came into our State. our court
| had not then decided it, and it was in
the case of the TarboX Express Com
| pany to answer to the State of Maine
| where our courts overturned their own
decision made but Il year or two preVi=
ously, and followed the decision of the
| United States Court and held that the
liquors could come in and could be de-
| liVered to the consignees at their own
| homes. The officers then had to aban-
don the course which they had followed,
they had no right to seize at the sta
ton. Now with that decision of our
| court and the decision of the United
States Court liquors in any quantity
can come in here. What is going to be
the result? Is it better to regulate, or
| is it not? 1t cannot be kept out, that
| is admitted All of us know that liquor
cannot be kept out from the State; II
has as much right to come in here as
flour or grain or groceries imported
from another state, the same legal and
| lawful right TO be here. Now then, with
that condition existing, with the fact
| that when you try by special legislation
as. for instance, by the Sturgis law to
force the people by means of law
| which they repudate, can the sale of
liquor be suppressed in that way.
Now, gentlemen, | am going to say
| this: After that law was first estab-
| Iished-because it seems to be admit
| ted that there must be some drastic
/ legislation of that kind to get the best
results from an enforcement standpoint
| that there were but few counties
| that this law operated in, it was more
| than two years after the establishment
| of this commission before they finally
| went to the cities; they came frequent
| ly to the cities in the county of Andro-
| scoggin When did they go to the city
of Portland? When did they go to Rum
ford? When did they so to Bath? Lat
| or on, was it, after they went to Rock
| land. Was ii law that applied to the
| State entirely? There was law on
| the statute books, but as a method of
| enforcement was it directed alike
throughout the State? Men in the diff
| ferent parts of the State know about
| it, and so we come at this time to the
practical method of dealing with it. |
/ am sorry that the gentleman made such
| reference tosthe Governor of the State,
| such reference to United States Senators
whom I believe Thoroughly to be hon
| est men. We may not all view
| the problem alike; We see the re-
| suits all around us; we see them
| in every city, in every county. and in the
| larger places in every county the eondi-
| tions are proportionately bad. Now what
| can be done? The people of the State, II
| is true, had an election this last fail,
| and they voted in the negative; to meet
| the results of that election new bill
was framed to be again submitted to the
| people, and it is simply question ad-
| dressing itself to the good honest judS-
ment of the Legislature. 1t is question
| of what is best to do with the situation
| in our State, when we see the other
| states which have gone back on the theo-
| ry of prohibition. We cannot disguise
| these things. In some or the counties
of the State Jail sentences were gwen
| for violation of the prohibitory law; IN
other counties of the State by the same
justice fines We're taken. You cannot get
| an enforcement under the present system
! that shall be equitable and universal;
maybe you couldn't anyway. But when
| the President of these United States of
| America, who belongs to the same party
| to which my distinguished brother be-
| longs, has said that it was useless TO
attempt to enforce law toward which
| the public sentiment did not exist, when
| you have to admit that the public senti-
ment of the State of Maine is not in the
| general sense in favor of it, when you
see cases tried before jurieS the evidence
in which would be sufficient in any kind
of Il case to secure conviction for MUIR
der on the same facts, If they applied to
murder and then frequently have the
jury come in with a verdict of not gull
ty. who knows better than those who
have attended the courts and witnessed
! the trial-who knows better than those
in authority who have had to deal with
the matter? This is practical question,
Iat ha