MAINE’S EMANCIPATION.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XX, Issue 1121, 5 October 1911, Page 20

MAINE’S EMANCIPATION.

WHY THIS PROHIBITIONIST DECEPTION? THE NUMBERS AGAINST RESTRICTION. The Revd. J. Dawson and his friends of the New Zealand Alliance are evidently very seriously concerned over the developments in connection with the Maine Referendum. With their usual courteous (?) regard for the feelings of their opponents, they have not hesitated to characterise the so-called “Trade” version of the result as untruthful, and have apparently done so on the strength of an obviously misleading and untruthful cablegram, which Mr. Dawson made public on Thursday last. On that day the secretary of the New Zealand Alliance informed the Press Association that, in response to a cabled inquiry despatched to America, he had received the following message:—“Maine Prohibition victory.” In view of what has followed it is, perhaps, just as well that the reverend gentleman and his friends played the parts of Doubting Thomases, for the Auckland Provincial Council of the associated liquor interests of this Dominion, promptly cabled to New York for further information upon the subject, and on Sunday received particulars of the voting at the Maine Referendum, the message being as follows : — “Vote for repeal of prohibition, 60,481; vote against, 60,461; majority in favour of repeal of prohibition, 20. All cities excepting one vote for repeal of Prohibition; country districts vote against. Prohibitionists have technical objection, and official recount now being made. Final result will not be known until 9th October. The last referendum taken in 1884, prohibition had a majority of 44,000 in favour, now converted into a minority of twenty.” How on earth this can possibly be construed into a “Prohibition victory” is beyond our comprehension, as it must be beyond that of any sane and heathily minded man. • » a A DECIDED SET BACK. This “Prohibition victory” is, on the face of it, a decided set back for the Restrictionists who have so long dominated the State Legislature and people of Maine. To have transformed a minority vote of 46,972 into a majority vote of 20 is no mean achievement, and cannot surely savour of defeat. Rather is it a sweeping victory for the Anti-Prohibitionists of Maine, who are desirous of liberalising the laws of the State and of removing those

absurd restrictions that have for 60 years or more proved a prolific source of embarrassment to the authorities and a direct incentive to crime, coupled with a contemptuous disregard for law that is absolutely appalling to contemplate. And there can be no questioning the fact that the “Blue laws” of the New England States are at the bottom of the trouble- Maine has long been regarded as “the star prohibition state.” The influence of its example has been world-wide and far-reaching in its effect. When Maine decided to incorporate the prohibition law into its constitution in 188.4, the prohibition party more than doubled the majority by which the original vote was carried in 1858. In the latter yeai- the majority in favour of prohibition was 22,943; in 1884 it advanced to 46,972, and now, in 1911, that majority, constituting practically a three to one vote, has not been completely wiped out, but actually placed in a minority. And the Revd. J. Dawson and his friends of the New Zealand Alliance claim this as a prohibition victory! Even should the further recount, which we can only assume is taking place, secure a reversal of the figures shown by the first recount, which established the (to prohibitionists) unpalatable fact that Maine had gone back on her sixty years attempt to banish liquor from its territory, the fact must remain that there is a very serious falling off in the prohibitionist vote in the State, and that the experience of an average life time has convinced a very considerable number of prohibitionists —more than 14 per cent, of the total registered in 1884—that the policy of restriction and attempted suppression is as unwise as it is futile and ineffective. In 1884 over 70 per cent, of the votes polled were recorded in favour of prohibition; in 1911 the prohibitionists were unable to secure 50 per cent, of the total vote. On the other hand, the Anti-Prohibitionists, who were unable to secure 30 per cent, of the total vote in 1884 polled slightly more than 50 per cent, of the 1911 vote. A great victory (?) for prohibition, truly! • 9 » WHY THE VOTE WAS REVERSED. When the truth about the Maine Referendum is published it will, in our opinion, be found that the most potent factor in bringing about the change of opinion that has so unmistakeably taken place, has been a more or less general recognition of the fact that prohibition does not and cannot prohibit either the sale of liquor or its consumption. A recent magazine article, written almost purely from the prohibition standpoint, contains the startling admission that “two thousand public drinking places, at least, are steadily active in Maine.” “Maine liquor dealers,” the same article asserts, “obtain anywhere from

500 to 1400 liquor dealers’ licenses each year from the United States Internal Revenue Department. Each license (the writer adds) is prima facie evidence of ‘intent to sell.’ But the total number of licenses is only a fraction of the number of places actually selling liquor. In Portland there are about four times as many places selling liquor to thirsty citizens as feel it necessary to take out Federal licenses through fear of the revenue officers!”. One Boston wholesale liquor dealer alone disposes of liquor in Maine to the amount of one hundred thousand dollars (£20,000) a year, and “fifty such companies are operating in Maine,” some of whom are doing a larger business than the Boston firm. Mr- William Pennell, after six years’ experience as sheriff of Cumberland County, estimated that “Maine’s annual liquor bill was between three and four million dollars. The consumption of whisky in Portland alone he estimated at four hundred gallons a day.” A wholesaler further estimated that a hundred barrels of beer per day were consumed in Portland. “These,” says the writer of the article referred to, “are the cold statistics of the situation in a State that prohibits the ‘sale or keeping for sale’ of intoxicants.’ ” Of course, there is only one answer: Graft. The fact that there is graft is the chief argument of the antiprohibitionists. • • ■ A DEPLORABLE STATE OF AFFAIRS. Actual experience of prohibition in Maine has shown that it has produced worse evils than those it sought to remedy. Citizens failed to see why they should abandon the use of alcoholic beverages simply because their neighbours had voted that they ought to; and when legislation sought to enforce the law that followed the vote, they saw no moral offence in still getting their liquors—if not open-* ly then secretly. They learned to disregard the law, to treat it with contempt, to take a pride in circumventing injunctions they thought unreasonable, and to very often drink more than if they had been left alone. And strict enforcement of the law, under such circumstances was found to be impossible. Mr. Gleeson tells us that “there are families of hereditary rumsellers who have handed down the technique of evading law and intimidating officers, for two, three and four generations, some of whom are descendants of the original brewers who were rooted in the soil until the prohibition wave washed them out. They know how to sell liquor. Sheriffs come and sheriffs go, but the liquor sellers go on for ever.” In Portland, it is stated that about 40 druggists, 60 hotels and bar-rooms, and about 80’ “kitchen-bars” “sell liquor regularly and openly,” and “there are, moreover, peddlers who carry pocket flasks and'

sell you either a drink or a flask.” There have been periods when the law has been strictly enforced, but experience shows that at such times '‘enforcement doubles the number of kitchen bar-rooms- Liquor traffic goes into the homes of the poor; women sell to men because kitchen bars are in the home, and the woman of the house being always there it naturally becomes her charge; children become little agents, young men become pocket peddlers of poisonous splits (the ‘split’ is. a mixture of bad alcohol — sometimes wood alcohol —water, a dash of rum and some colouring matter. It results in blind, crazy drunkenness. The stricter the enforcement the poorer the liquor, and the larger the proportion of whisky over beer. The demoralising effect of this illicit traffic may be gauged from the following: “During one year and four months of enforced prohibition, the principal of the Centre-street Public School estimated that one thousand school children of Portland were engaged in the traffic as peddlers, announcers, lighthouses and look outs.” All sorts of expedients are adopted to avoid detection. In one instance liquor was kept in a disused sewer; in other instances the hiding places would 'be woodsheds, the cellar, between the mattresses of beds, between the ticks in a' cradle and so on. In one house, a secret bar “ran spring water with one turn of the faucet, but on the opposite turn it ran whisky which came from the attic. through, a lead pipe in the partition. Another house had in its cellar, an apparently blank well. But if you lifted an innocent rock the spring gave, the wall thrust out into the cellar, and behind the wall a case of whisky was nooked. In the ground floor of another house you will discover a trapdoor, just large enough for a child to be let down into the cellar to pass up the bottles.” And these statements, it must be remembered, are made by the writer of an article who argues that “Prohibition has made cleaner, better cities,” and who confidently expected that it would be retained in the constitution by the electors. * * * DEMORALISED CHILD LIFE. The children of the very poor are those who suffer most from and by this illicit trading. In the kitchen barroom “the stuff is peddled out in dirty glasses to other families in the same tenement, to labouring men on their way to and from work and to fellows with their girls. This means that the. children of the family who sell and the children of the other families in the tenement are made agents in the traffic- The children peddle it out to passers-by, direct them into the rear room, pick up the empty bottles and watch for deputies. . . . In times of strict enforcement, children on the alert for the deputies, pass the word down Centre Street, ‘Blow, blow,’ which means the raiders are coming. In Portland one saloon employs several ‘lighthouse’ boys to flash a warning. Their wages run from eight to fifteen dollars a week, and the keenest-, of them receives eighteen But mostly the children do the’job for fun.” And Mr. Gleeson makes this significant comment on the business: “A direct prohibitory law, partially nullified, drives the local retail liquor trade into vile hands. The secrecy, the illicit sales, all the unholy accompaniments of breaking the law continuously attract the lowest grade of liquor sellers. Such men favour prohibition because a high license, if a law were passed licensing saloons, would cost them good money, and since most of the'm have criminal records they might be unable to obtain a license!” With facts such as these before them, is it any wonder that the majority of the people of Maine have come round to accept the fact that a properly regulated and effectively supervised trade .would largely remove . the; evils with Which Maine is ■ seen to be afflicted! The moral for ourselves is obvious.,,

The story of an ingenious theft from a public-house was told at Birmingham police court/ when" Geoffrey Gamble was- charged with having stolen, a sovereign. Three sovereigns had been placed on a ledge at the back,’ of the bar. The prisoner came in for a drink, and having been served, was observed by the. landlord reaching for the money with a long bamboo cane. To the end, of the cane was fixed a small tin filled with soap.■ •One. of the sovereigns was missing, and was discovered .in the prisoner’s pocket. The prisoner was sentefichd to two months’ imprisonment.