Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-04-14

requires explanation, yet in nearly ev-
cry case you will find that the respon
dent was punished either one way or
1.-THE other, either by the payment of
la fine or by imprisonment in Jail. 1t
lis nothing new for Mr.. Hines to mol
lpros a case: 1t isn't an unheard of
Thing. 1t has been the practice ever
since the practice of criminal law be-
gan for attorneys occupying this po-
sition to use their own judgment and
Iheir own discretion, to advice with
1.-THE court in regard to these eases, IL
those cases appeared worthy of being
mol pressed. NV brother SHELTON did
it and l have got his record here but
i don't want to introduce it undess he
wants to. Mr.. Brother Morey has
done it, and can look around ana
see other attorneys who perhaps have
occupied this position of county attor-
lney. and they won't dare to say but
that they in their practice found it
good practice at times TO mol pros
cases either without or with the pay
| ment of money.
They say rs an indietion of his will
| full neglect and refusal, that Ger
tain members of the church went TO
| MIN and was DESTROYS of appearing
before the grand jury to give his in
| formation in regard to certain condi-
| tiens existing in Lewiston. and it is
ltrie. They say that he was furnished
with copy of the bulletin which
gave him certain information in re-
gard to certain places. That is true.
but il is also true. gentlemen. that
there isn't n place mentioned in that
bulletin that hasn't been indicted. not
one. and although Mr.. Leitch had that
information and passed il il he did,
to Mr. Hines in the form of bulle-
tin. Mr.. Hines is prepared to testify
that not one place mentioned in that
bulletin but that was prosecuted. Mr.
,, Leitch says he made some sort of n
statement 10 limit appears that per-
haps | may have been mistaken. that
Il was too broad in my statements.
and it may appear that two places
iout of the great number of places
mentioned in that bulletin there was
no indictment found against. but Mr..
Leiteh. in his desire To see conditions
icorrected-and he is no more desirons
of that than Mr.. Hines is--that he
went to him and Mr. Hines told him
that he was not elected TO enfroce the
prohibitory law.
Now / have all of the respect for u
man who wears the cloth. | don't be-
llieve, nor I don't intend even to in
sinuate, that Mr. Leitch was wilfully
|misstating the conversation that pass
ed between him and Mr.. Hines. ] am
charitable enough to believe that he
was mistaken, and let it go at that.
Mr.. Leiteh was informed by Mr.. Hines
THAT he was doing the best he could.
so far as he was concerned, that the
sentiment of the community was
against the enforcement. or the. strict
enforcement OF the law, and that II
was a difficult thing for him to strict
ly enforce the law. but that he was
doing all that he could.
And it is true. Mr. Hines was do
ing all that he could, gentlemen. tie
couldn't go out upon the street, ne
couldn't go and raid places; he eouldn
go in and make deputy sheriH Oh
himself; he couldn't take position
upon a jisger load of liquor and traVei
through the streets of the Guy OF
lewiston. No county attorney ever
did that before and he had too much
resnect for himself, for his profession
ana for his office, to even CONSIDER
such proposition, even though the
State maintains that that is eNactiy
what he should do. i hope the time
will never come when any attorney IN
the state of Maine will so FAR forget
his profession as to debase himself
inro being a LIQUOR sleuth, and l don
think il ever will come, gentlemen
Further I say that this conversation
that they had-Mr Leitch with Mr.
Hines-that it is true that there was
conversation and that Mr.. Hines told him
only this that IL was difficult thing to
enforce the prohibitory law there and
thai he was doing his best to do 1t.
Rut he saws he had a case against the
| sheriff and he wanted to go before the
GRAND iury. he wanted to go through
that omen door and present his case
against the sheriff
i Gentlemen YOU have had a little -ex-
nerience with that law that he wished TO
/ nrosecute at this present session. Have
YOU ever heard Il single prosecution under
' that statute since it was enacted in 1895?
7 have not nor / don't believe that you
have. and this proposition that came UP
| before you to enlarge the duties of the
J attorney general, that he could go
!, in before the grand jury was found IN
YOUR Judgment to be unreasonable, ana
| for that reason that act was defeated,
and Mr. Hines wasn't going to place
himself in position to find an indict-
! ment upon law which l believe. and
I believe anybody that knows any law al
J all believes, unconstitutional.
| Now then, SO far as this defence Is
7 concerned it is rather difficult defence
to present Really. it all rests with Mr..
; Hines himself. We come here prepared
to show to this convention that Mr..
Hines has been "A faithful official, that
he has performed his duties as well as
any man could perform them. as well as.
any man ever did perform them. He will
tane the stand. He will tell you his ex-
perience as county attorney. He will re-
late to you the duties that he has per-.
!. formed. II you find that he has not
performed them, that he has been will
fully negligent, or wilfully refused TO
perform them, then place your seal OF