Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-04-09

| If that man persisted IN selling, the,
would keep after him until he-waE drlvei
out of the business.
@. Who was that man? A. Antonio
| Obano.
Q. What do you say as to similar con
| versations in cases where you have beef
permitted to pay fines? A. / was told
through the sheriff's office. that although
| fine was paid. the next time it woult
be a straight Jail sentence if they KEEP
in the business.
Q. How long have you lived in Port
land? A. 1 was born in Portland.
Q. Lived there all your life? A. II
Portland and Lewiston.
q. You have practised iaw m porf
Land? A. Yes, sir. Since 90
Q. Since that time. have you beer
familiar with the conditions there gen
orally? A. Yes, sir
Q. And whether or not you have any
special Information as to the condition,
in respect to the sale and use of intoxi.
eating liquors in Portland? A In a gen.
eral way, attending court and being or
the street in the pursuit of my profess
sion.
q. Please do not answer the mex,
question until it has been ruled upou
From your observation in and abou,
Portland during the past four. wears
what have you to say as to the cond-
tions existing in Portland for the pas.
three months in relation to the sale or
the drinking of intoxicating liquors?
Question read by the reporter)
TIE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Tina I
is a rather peculiarly worded question.
Mr.. CULVER: AS compared with
previous conditions?
(Objected to)
The SPEAKER: We think that
makes it objectionable: otherwise it is
not.
Mr.. FATTANGALL:. suppose. MIR
Speaker, that our position is entirely
understood on that point, but il seems
so important to us that 1 know You
will pardon my saying a word in re-
gard to it. should judge that the gis.
OF this complaint against Sheriff Moul-
ton was not that he had not succeeded
in fully enforcing the prohibitory Law,
but that he had not done in that re-
spect all that he should do or all thar
he could do.
Now whether his administration with
regard II the enforcement of the pro-
hibitory law. but that he had not done
in that respect all that he should do or
all that he could do.
Now whether his administration with
regard to the enforcement of the pro-
hibitory Jaw has been good or bad, il
seems To us could be only determined
by comparison with something.
l 90 not know how anything can be
said to ne good or bad except by COM
pariscn with something, and we Geem
it not only proper but necessary to
make comparison between his work
and that of other men who have at
tempted the same work in the same To-
cality under the same conditions, in
order that the convention may have L
correct view of that work. So. much of
the evidence as would be somewhat in
the line Of an opinion. and somewhat
creative. because of hearsay. we should
say was admissible in these proceed
ings just as a great deal of hearsay
and opinion evidence was necessarily
admitted on the part of the prosecu-
ton in depicting the general eondi-
tons there. and those two points are
what we rely upon in Offering that class
of testimony.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL 1t
Seems to us if that ground is taken
that it would necessarily involve a
theoretical standard of other sheriffs
and whether that was n proper stand
ard 10 use, whether this sheriff had
enforced the law as we'll as others. Il
seems as though that is sufficient 10
meet the first reason that my brother
sets FORTH.
AS to the question OF opinion evidence
in relation to what has pesen transacted
during the last three. monthly we, have
no objection to any witness Stating act
ual facts insofar as he IS allowed to
speak from observation and from opin-
ion in relating facts. We have no. opjec-
ton to the witness stating facts. that
is. when testifying in regard to any
particular saloon, whether closed or
OPEN there is some opinion involved
there. II is admissible as il was in our
witnesses. But testifying as to whether
saloons are closed as we'll now as in
prior years we do not think is admis-
sible. 81
The SPEAKER: We tank We under
stand the principle that the Chair Is try
ing to adhere to, and we think there Will
not be any trouble in applying it. The
question is not as to whether or not the
law is enforced. but it is whether or not
the law has been wilful!y unenforced.
That is all. Now it does not throw any
legal light on that question to show
whether or not the law is enforced now
better or worse than, in some previous
administration That would involve go
ing beyond that and finding out by proof
or otherwise. finding out how much the
law was enforced under that admins
tration, but we would arrive at nothing
The Chair has ruled that the compari.
son of affairs under these different ad
ministrations is not admissible.
On the other question of opinion testi-
mony, any opinion is to be distinguished
from the facts, and it is for this body tC
arrive at facts. 1t is perfectly true thai
| legitimate questions of fact may involve
opinions. and the Chair desires it to pt
understood that this ruling may be mod
! flied at times to conform with that idea
| 1t may be that many questions will b'
| asked that would be admissible and tina
may involve an opinion. 1t is OF cours'
4