Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1926-08-27
Dry Director May
Points Officers Can
Paddock Buildings

The attention of sheriffs, chiefs Of
police and county attorneys has been
recently directed by Seth May, dep
uty prohibition administrator for
Maine, to Section %, Title II Of the
National Prohibition Act (Act Of
Congress, October %, 1919 and to
the fact that any county attorney
map petition any justice Of the SUI
preme court of Maine for an order
padlocking any building for the per-
iod Of one year in case a persistent
liquor nuisance is maintained n the
building.
In other words, county officials
may obtain paddock injunctions"
from judges of the Maine supreme
court precisely as federal officials
may obtain the same process from
the United States courts: 1880.
Section %, is as follows:
"An action to enjoin any nuisance
defined in this title may be brought
in the name of the United States by
the Attorney General Of the United
States or by any United States At
torney or any prosecuting attorney
of any state or subdivision thereof,
or by the commissioner or his depu-
ties or assistants. Such action shall
be brought and tried as an action in
equity and may be brought in any
court having jurisdiction to hear AMI
determine equity cases."
Said Mr. May:
1.-THE supreme court of California
in the case of Carse v Marsh, 210
the State of California, having jur-
isdiction to hear and determine
equity cases may proceed under Sec
ton 90, Title II of the National Pro-
hibition Act. This is not a novel
prncple. 1t has been applied here
tofore a great many times with ref
erence to other provisions Of the
Federal Statutes, which may be en-
forced by the courts of any State.
The effect of this law appears to
be substantially the same, therefore,
as if the foregoing section had been
enacted into law by the Maine Legis-
lature
"a paddock injunction was obtained
from the United States district judge
recently upon complaint of the United
States upon evidence presented by Mr..
Mays Office and the Office of the chief
Of police of Lewiston. Maine. A store
in Legasse-Ducharme block at the
corner of Lincoln and Chestnut streets,
was ordered closed for a period of a
year. The occupant was forced to
move out and the door was securely
padlocked. There was some evidence
of liquor violations in other parts of
the building.
THE United States judge in issuing
the closing order gave warning that
If violations persisted in other parts
Of the building he should not hesitate
to order the entire structure vacated
and padlocked. This would have in
volved the eviction of a number of
tenants occupying the premises. Ap-
parently it had not been we'll under
stood that a proceeding Of this kind
could be carried out.
THAT 1t was actually done has caus-
ed all property owners to take notice
of what might happen to them if they
knowingly permit liquor nuisances to
be maintained in their buildings. No
process as yet undertaken has proven
so effective, but the proceeding is SO
drastic that no effort has been made
to apply it excepting in the case of
most persistent violations.
This is probably the most powerful
weapon available to sheriffs, chiefs of
police and county attorneys for abat-
ing persistent liquor nuisances, and,
as stated, it is available to them with
out the Intervention of any federal
officer