Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1926-04-23

written instructions from the county
a.eorney, who is his statutory adj
visor, to dispose of them by destruc.
!. ION: Inc Legislature has made par
ticular provision that the shAriff
snail neither willfully nor negligent
~ Permit any Of his prisoners to Sc
cure intoxicating liquors and severe
pena!tles are imposed for any fail
ure In this regard including the
penalty OF removal and disqualified
ZION Tor holding the office of sheriff
Tor a period of five years.
In this case the respondent testi-
ned freely to dispensing Intoxicating
liquors to his friends who sought
them Tor medicinal purposes for
themselves or for their acauaintanc-
es. Cases of this sort without num-
per were recited by the Sheriff him
ser. The United States Government
mas very carefully provided and safe
guarded the methods under which
medicinal liquors may be secured in
necessary cases In this case the re-
spondent substituted himself for the
Constitution and Statutes of the
United States and of the State of
Maine and in his own discretion
without check or limit Of any kind
dispensed Intoxicating liquors as he
deemed best. If the good intentions
or Sheriff are the only test as to
the propriety of such conduct we are
again faced with the substitution of
a government of men for a govern
ment of law. 1t is not necessary to
question the good faith of the prac-
tees in the present case in order to
point out they would establish pre-
cedents which would make absolutely
impossible the administra ton of the
prohibitory law insofar as the dis
pensing of liquors by the Sheriff was
concerned. If this may be done in
fifty cases that appeal to the Sher-
If, 1t may be done in five hundred
cases and a wholesale business es-
tabllshed administering to the alleg-
ed needs of his fellow citizens, with
out regard to law.
Here, again however, it is not nee
essary to consider the consequences
Of practices of this kind but simply
to point out that the Constitution
and Statutes of both State and Ma
ton clearly impose upon the Sheriff
duty with, respect to these liquors
which he has utterly failed to per-
form. Out of his own mouth he is
condemned.
Many of the more evidently hon.
est of the respondents witnesses in
GLIDING the Sheriff himself agreed
that there was. intoXication within
the Jail. The only conflict in the evil
dence was as to its extent and this
minimizing evidence was largely OF
a negative character and left mater
ial witnesses Of fairly creditable
character with evidence of a very
serious nature unexplained and in
fact corroboratei in certain points
by discoveries which were admitted
in their cells.
Not only did the prisoners in the
Jail secure intoxicating liquors but
upon the evidence of the Sheriff him
self and his clief deputies these
prisoners wee allowed sufficient lib
critics and the seized liquors were SC
negligently stored that for an indie
terminate period by three distinct
methods, of which the Sheriff testi-
fed, the prisoners were actually Sc
curing their intoxicating liquors from
the seized liquors that were in store
under the Sheriff's care. Prisoners
were also able on the respondent
own evidence to secure and did Sc
cure such liquor as they desired from
a five gallon can deposited in the
bathroom of the living quarters OF
the Sheriff's part of the Jail.
1t does not seem difficult to credit
the evidence of prisoners that YER,
considerable intoXication in the jai
was the inevitable result of sucf
negligence in the conduct. of its at
fairs, nor to credit the evidence o.
one prisoner as to the very consid
cradle amounts which he paid II
{I,a .,f1 inIiny- yv-hi1a Fnnfin
in the Jail, which liquors may Yer,
we'll have come from the supply IL
the Sheriff's care. These supple:
were constantly replenished from thu
stores which the Sheriff and his de
puties were selling outside.
With full knowledge that the pris
oners had been securing liquors from
his stores and with written ordel
from the County Attorney to destro.
considerable quantities of these Ii
uuors the Sheriff on his own testi
mony has failed for the past twt
months to accomplish the destruc
ton Of these liquors but has con
tinued to leave them in a room i'm
mediately adjacent to the prisoner
and into which they had repeated,
broken within the past few months
Such conduct cannot be considered
anything other than gross negligence
both in the handling of these seizet
liquors and also in guarding tn
prisoners from securing intoxicatin:
liquors while they are in his car
and would in itself constitute suff1
cient warrant for removal under thu
plain provisions of the statutes pro
70 rOUer this Ease.
It is urged that the intentions o
this respondent were of the best ant
there was introduced considerable
evidence as to his efforts to reform
certain of the men in his charg'
although by methods not permitted
by the laws Of our State and to re
lieve the necessities of various clti
zens in distress in deliberate den
ance of the laws of Maine and O
the United States. There was ais'
introduced evidence as to the ex
cellent conditions of law enforce
ment prevailing in Kennebec Count,
concerning which no direct charges
of malfeasance were made by tn
prosecution in this case
The respondent himself, however
testified that following his induction
into Office he called one of the mos
prominent violators of the prohibl
tory law to his office and gave hin
three days in which to dispose o
his Intoxicating liquor on hand. I'm
der examination by the counsel 10
the respondent the Democratic Cit!
Marshall of the City of Augusts
testified that as result Of his OBJ
servation of conditions he was no
satisfied as to the sincerity Will
which the Sheriff or his Deputies
were trying impartially to enforce
the law and under similar question
ing the Federal Prohibition ADMIN
;ctrator for the State of Maine gave