Year: 1875

/ why uoeS DoSlon lall TO enforce the law
District Attorney May declared before a
legislative committee "that Boston iuries
often include the dregs Of society. In con-
sequence of this packing of juries with
the unprincipled it is impossible to inflict
just punishment upon rumsellsrs in Boston,
These ejuries understand that the city author
'ttes, including the police, will wink at their
| perjury and corruption in order to save
rich liquor dealers from punishment. The
fact that the courts of Suffolk county (Bos-
! tom have not sent a rnmseller, gambler or
keeper of a house of ill-fame to the House
of Correction during the eight months end
ing Aug. 81, 1874, is proof of corruption
| somewhere.


The State consta6les have had fifty three
prosecutions against keepers of houses of
ill-fame in Boston from Jan. to Sept. 90,
| 1874, and not one of the criminals has been
sent to the House of Correction"


Would a license law remedy this evil or
be better enforced? t5.)


Read what Gov Gaston's immediate pre-
decessors say about it. Thomas Talbot, in
veto message dated June o., 1874, says:


SO far as attempts have been made to
compromise the two systems of prohibition
and license by legalizing sales through drug
gsts and town agents, or by permitting
the unrestricted sale of malt liquors and
| light intoxicants, the results have been
unsatisfactory. Abuses of the grossest
character were found to creep in at once
where any privileges were granted, and
subsequent legislatures have been obliged
to repeal what seemed to be on the passage
most carefully guarded enactments of
restrictive character. Compromise in this
regard that shall not be abused in the most
| fragrant manner, all experiences with which
am familiar prove to be all impossibility.
| lfintemperance If is not our inexorabe doom,
| if the poverty and wrethedness and crime
brought on by the use of intoxicating
liquors are not our inevitable heritage,
what can we do better than to set ourselves
| in unyielding opposion to the traffic which
| promotes it?


l am aware that it is said intemperance
increases under our prohibitory law-that
the sale of intoxicants is as great as it
would be under license law But | call
| your attention to the absence here of the
| Haunting and attractive bar-rooms that
| spread their snares to capture the thought
| less and easily tempted in cities where
| licenses prevail; to the constantly growing
sense of disfavor with which the liquor
traffic is regarded by the country gener-
| ally; and to the powerful, systematic, and
unrelenting activity of those interested in
| it to break down the law and the officers
who try to enforce it. Here is an evidence
that the statute does impose an active and
| gripping restraint, from which relief is
sought in the elastic and easily evolved
i nf ~ ~,
cere friends of temperance prefer a string
ent license law to a prohibitory system,
there can be no denial that the men who
have money and business at stake in this
| contest are the most ardent and urgent
advocates of license, and ! cannot doubt
| that they understand themselves and calcu-
late shrewdly the advantage they will gain.
| 1t is easy to mistake the clamor of inter-
ested parties for the voice of the people.
When L seek to ascertain what the latter
| really is, | recall that the license law, elab-
| GRATED with SO much care in 1868, was per-
mitted to remain on the statute books only
| till the people could next be heard at the
ballot box. With the single exception that
public bars are prohibited, the measure
now under consideration is in no essential
point better, and in some respects | think
| it is less stringent than that was The
notorious evasions of that law, and the
open way in which all intoxicants were
then sold under the protection of innhold-
ers' and victuallers licenses, demonstrated
| the powerleSSneSS of such euactments to
| protect the community against the evils of
intemperance. And the pending bill seems
to me simply a prohbitory measure with
exceptions that totally destroy its moral
force as an instrument for the promotion
of temperance and the we'll being of our
people.


1t is objected to our present liquor law
that the enforcement of it is irregular and
unequal. Admitting this to be true for
| the sake OF argument, what assurances
| have we that license law would be more
thoroughly enforced? Are the penalties
imposed any more severe? ? Are the penal
ties any greater incentives to officers or
citizens to do their duty? The prohibitory
leg islation of 1866 had its origin in the
deep-settled conviction that the license law
of that period was virtually dead letter.
The law of 1868 was violated with such
open and reckless impunity that it became
mockery in the eyes of the people. In
our sister States where the license system
now prevails, there is a daily burden of
complaint that its penalties are detied and
its provisions evaded on every hand.


Where is the proof that the local police
| and magistrates who refrain from efforts
to enforce the prohibitory law would faith


fully and energetically and persistenly en-


force license law? 1t is not furnished
by our experience or by the experience of
any other commonwealth


| Nor is the argument at all conclusive to
my mind that we should not retain upon
our statute books a law that is in advance
of public opinion on this subject. Law is
in one sense guide board pointing out the
course of conduct which, if followed, will
secure the greatest degree of good and
| happiness and safety for all. Therefore it
must often be largely ideal in its character,
and frequently in advance of the general
conduct of those subject to it, that it may
| be an instructor and elevator, as well as
source of restriction and punishment. To
a law committing the commonwealth of
Massachusetts to a public acknowledgment
that the sale of Intoxicating liquors as a
beverage is necessary and desirable, | can
not on my conscience give assent. 1t
seems to me that the only safe and sound
position for Christian community to take
i'll regard to this matter is that of absolute
and unqualified opposition to the traffic.


and Claflin are to the same effect and are a
sufficient answer to points a. A. and o.
with what has been granted.


The answers to points e. and 49, are
plain to any one, and will no doubt sooner
or later be thrust into the teeth of the
cewardly Executive officer who thus insults
the law abiding people of Massachusetts,.
Because the Rum power" is great, and
rich, and proud in Boston, and able to con-
troll all her municipal courts and juries,
and bribe some of her State officers, is this
reason why you should bow down and
worship the golden image that they have
set up? By the same argument you must
license every other evil that cannot be
entirely prevented by law, or that can raise
money or influence enough to hinder its
execution.


Further in answer to (5.) Can you Sc
cure any irresponsible hands" to engage
in a business directly antagonistic to every