Daily Kennebec journal., 1913-04-14

that the attorney general will differ
with me on that proposition that there
must be evidence of some wilful
neglect or wlful refusal proven
against William II. Hines during his
present term of Office before you can
consider even the question of removal.
Everything relating to prior terms is
admitted simply as to whether It
sheds some light on the motives of
the county attorney in doing what
ever he has done during the present
term, as showing his state of mind,
as indicating. if there was neglect,
whether ii was wifai or otherwise:
that is all.
At the start Of the case 1t IS in
cumbent upon the prosecution 10
show some wrong doing, some act ri
omission or commission, that amounts
to wilful neglect or wilful refusal dur
ing the present term of office.
would like you to remember that; it
is of vital importance in this case.
and there can be no controversy about
it, You cannot address the Governor
to remove man from Office for
I something he did in a prior term, or
for something he did while he held
some other office The cases are de-
cisive upon that point and the Chair
has SO ruled in these cases. that the
only purpose for which evidence
would be put in relating to prior
terms was to give you an opportunity
f, to say whether any neglect in TINS
case was wilful or not. That Is the
only purpose it can come in for.
4 Now taking that for start yoH
must look at the term of office which
i Mr. Hines has held since January l.
1913. and YOU can then determine
whether there has been any wrong
doing during that tenn or not on bis
part any failure To perfarm his dutH,
any wilful neglect, any wliful re-
fusal. to perform his duty during the
past three months. If there has not
been. Your case ends, so far as his
case goes.
If YOU are going to vote On the
case, and | assume you are, II you afT
! going to vote on the merits oil thH
case, and | assume you are. II YOU
minds are directed toward the merts5
of the case and | assume you ar
YOU must first consider whether any
thing has been done by Mr.. hlhes
which would warrant his removal
since the first day of January, lslo'
If Won don't find that to base your
case on. then all this other evidence
is absolutely valueless and couldn
even be properly heard. In order u
make it admissible a basis had to be
made by showing something that oc-
cnrred since January first. 1913. l
can't repeat that too often, can
,rt,. ~ /
snre that every man in this conVch-
ton has it fairly in mind. IL Is ,i''
vital thing. 1t is the foundatioh u
the prosecutions case.
+, Now let us look at the record since
January /. 1913. One term OF couf.
has been held. Atthat term oil coust
Mr.. Hines had indicted some 66 liquor
! sellers. The record of the uniteh
! States licenses is put in by Mr.. owen
| or by our consent as coming IRON
him. showing 81 licenses or United
states stamps held in the city 81
Lewiston Now a good many of thos
of course are held by druggists, so
+, that you may conclude that at ths
January term Mr.. Hines Indicted
practically every man who was In the
liquor business in the city of Lewis
ton So far he did his duty, you can't
complaint about that. That is abouS
all the county attorney could do at
/ the start would be to indict the
liquor sellers, and they were indict-
| ed
Now let us see. We begin the year
with that. We begin the year. no.
| with an act of omission, but an act of
active commission in favor of the
county attorney, Mr. Hines, Sc indict-
ments brought before the grand jury
evidence properly presented by him.
evidence presented by him in such "a
way that the grand jury would the
indictments.
Now the prosecution has said that
the respondents were not in court
Well, that happened. but is there any
man in this body. lawyer or layman
who is going to say that they were not
in court because of the wilful neglect
or the wilful refusal of William H.
Hines to perform his duty? Is there
any man with experience in that line
who won't tell you when you meet IN
your respective houses, when you lis
ten to remarks by each other. as
juryman should when they retire. IS
there any man familiar with suca
matters but that will tell you that it is
a common thing in the counties
where there are large cities ana
where the liquor traffic has flourished
to some extent for the last fifty years
that if the county attorney indiets
large number of liquor sellers, anu
they are coming up before judge
from whom they fear Jail sentences
for them to leave the city or the
county, and get out of the way?
Why not have them under arrest
They were under arrest, and they got
bail, and Mr.. Hines was as helpless to
bring them into court as YOU Wouio
have been, except in one way
He procured the indictments, and no"
came the court The respondents were MT
| there. Judge Savage was there. fhere
was one way in which they could be
brought into court if the sheriifs eouiu
| find them, and that was by issuing behch
warrants, and they have been mentioned
a great deal in this case. Was he guilty
of wilfu neglect or wilful refusal III not
asking for bench warrants? Let us see
what the evidence was. He says that ne
i Il