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

the county Jail in Portland, for 1909 IN
elusive To 1913 inclusive.
| Understand from conversation with
, the attorney general that the facts
stated IN this record are admitted to
be uGc, but that he does not assent 10
the materially of the evidence
/ ATTORNEY GENERAL WILSON:
Back of Sheriff Moulton's adrinistra
,ion. We do not object To the introduce
| tlon OF tie evidence relating 10 the
commitments during his three months,
!, OF his two years, If the defense so de
| sire, but ii does not seem to us that
evidence of commitments during pre-
| vious administrations has any bearing
| upon the question that is now before
| the convention.
The SPEAKER: The Char under
| stands. that the inquiry had been limit
! tied to the condition of facts existing
! during the two years before the first
| of January. is there any other reason
| advanced by counsel as to why this IS
| admissible?
| Mr.. PAFTANGALI. The point in
| that evidence, Mr.. Speaker would be-
/ this In order for the convention To
| fairly determine whether Sheriff Moui-
| ton had properly enforced the law in
/ his administration, it seems to us 1t
| would be necessary for them 10 have
| somc evidence directly bearing upoa
| the situation i'll th2t county. 1t has al
| ready blen shown in testimony by the
| state tina: from 1901 to 1919 there have
| been periods rex ognized by the State,
| by the prosecutions witnesses. when
| as rigid enforcement prevailed in Cum
| aeflano as was possible. Now Of course
II record showing that in Sheriff Moul-
| tons administration there had been
| certain number of Jail sentences I'M
posed in Cumberland county would
mean nothing, or very little If COM
pared in the mind Of the eonventiop
viii. the number of jail sentences in
some other neutrality-suspicious. con-
ditions and all that differing, but il
statistics could be put in, showing that
On the various matters Which tend -
| prove enforcement. Sheriff Mouton's
administration compared favorably
| with the periods when it is admitted
| that enforcement was in vogue in Cum
| beriand county. we think it would haze
! u great deal of evidentual value. That
| would not IL true of course. OF all
| matters, but of certain ma tiers Go ::
| little farther. The number OF eonvic-
! tons, the number of searches and
Z seizures taken for Portland alone
might seem large or small, as the case
might he, as compared in The conven-
tons mind with the situation in Ban
| sor or Lewiston, but to compare Port
! land under what WAS agreed to be rigid
| enforcement would seem to us To be
| able 10 aid the convention in reaching
| a reasonable conclusion, and that is
| the purpose for which we offer it.
| ATTORNEY GENERAL WILSON:
| In reply to That, Mr.. President, Of
course II is perfectly obvious, it has
| been already brought in here, that
| there have been changes i'll the court
! officials ana 1t is admitted that they
have discretionary power, So far as the
! commitment of criminals OF all classes.
as 10 what sentence they will impose.
| Now 1t seems to me perfectly Obvious.
| for that reason if for no otner, that the
| introduction of evidence of this kind
would have the very slightest weight.
| if any at all, as determining whethea
| Sheriff Moulton has been properly en-
| forcing The law. In addition to that the
| evidence which my brother refers to
was not introduced by us but was iri-
| troduced by him in cross examination
| and at that time he undertook to ac-
| cept it as a standard enforcement. /
| understood my brother in the opening
| Of his case that they had abandoned
| that standard and were now setting up
| new enc OF which they claim Stlerit'
Mci,iton is he exponent and it does
! not seem TO me on that ground that
they ought TO put in evidence relating
To enforcement which they claim is not
= wise or ii just enforcement sof law.
ID A n A
agree with the Attorney General that
the weight of such evidence would
not be great, aside from the question
of admissibility. We simply offer It
to the convention for what it is worth,
in getting at the question of whether
the law has been enforced there as
well as it can be, or has been enforced
in the County of Cumberland.
The SPEAKER: The question be-
fore the assembly. of course, is as To
whether or not the sheriff has been
dcrelect in the performance of his
duty during the period from January
first to now. Investigation has been
had into the conditions for two years >
proceeding January LIST, for another
purpose, being, as the Chair UNDER
stands it, for the purpose of showing
q possible, or a probable or a neces
sary knowledge on the part of the
sheriff of conditions, which conditions
if shown to continue down to the pres
cnt time would have a bearing upon
his attitude of mind as to being will
full or otherwise in the neglect of the
performance of duty. Comparative
analysis as to whether or not the sher-
if is now performing his duty less or
more vigorously than it was perform
ed by previous sheriffs, on the face
of it, would not appear to be of sufii-
cient value as evidence to make il
proper in this case; and for the pres
ent at least, unless something new APP
pears or some further reason is APP
parent, the Chair feels that the evil
dence of this character should be con-
fined to the two years preceding jan
CONTINUED on Page Five)