Neal Dow And Prohibition In Maine

Believ'mg tlüit no uonl end can be Becureii tlirough error or inisrepresetnuion, and believing you would not willngly misrepresect au important fact, I nclose for piiblicatiuii, liy way of cortectlng h misstateinent in your editorial iftbe Utah inst., "Proaibltion iu llhode [sland," a letter to me frotu Hon. Neal Dow. Yuurs truly, Wm. Pakmkntok. VenaoutyUle, April iy, ism. Poiuxand, April 16, 1886. Wm. Parmentor, Etsq., VermoutvlUe, Mich. Deak sik:- Tooi note of Mie llith inelosini; m editorial froniThe Free Pres of H ust reeeiveil. 1 had a few daya ago the same slip ii 'jiii a Michigan gentleman, wit ti a note, t wiiic-h I replied In mil. I will recapitúlate q you bi letly what 1 saul to hun: The Kree Press is inainlestly au antl-prohliltion paper. 1 have uoticed that all such ,reat most unfairly every fact relatlng to the eal Niipptvssioii of the snloons. 1 ii .huiie, aller more than Llnrty years' exlei leace of tl ie result of prohibition, our peole pul il mto the Constltutlon by a majorlty nore than twlce larger than any party or pro" i! urn ever had In Maine before. Kvery distillery and brewery lias been supnvssed in Militie - not one remalhing. we lad niaiiy ot tlieni- nlne in Portland. The ¦ , 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 i t - of llquor gold In Maine la not nore than one-twentieth oí what it was. Our State savea anniially.dlrectly and Indirectly, it leasl L1, 000,000, which but for the Maine aw would be spent, lost and wasted in drink. The Kree Press says : "Itis but a few dayH siuce Neal Dow, thegreat apostle of prohi)ition, declared In a temperance conference that In no state iu the Union were there so ïwiiy towns slaves to the llquor trafflc as In hé Mate ot Maine. l neversaid that. nor anytblng llke it anyvhere, at any time. What I dld say was, hat notwlthstanding the overwheiniing maority vote for constltutional prohibltion In-ie is no state iti the Union where the reniullcan party, under the rule of the uuscrupulous bosses, is more thoroughly comruitted to the liquor tralüo and to oppositlon to prohibition. The republiciin party In Maine is heartily n lavor ot prohibiliou, by full two-thirds or hree-iotirtlis ofits members; but for all that be bornes control it iu the interest of ram. These bosaesare personally of no account- mere trlckaten and wire-pullers at ward caucuses, wlioiu we meau to put down. Hespeclfully, Neal Dow, The Free Press gives place very cheer'tilly to the letter of Maine's venerable antaic who lias wrestled so many years u ith tlie demon of rum. We accept bis li'tiiiil of the lunguage attributed to hitn, remurking only that we found it quoted precisely as we ave it in ut least two japers published in New England, and iveti as an extract from a speech made iy liim at Lewistoi), Maine. We eau not ulmit. bowerer, that Tlie Free Press treats factá relating to the suppression of saloons tinlairly. or that otlier ant.i-prohiUtlOD papers do so. It has been the liabit of Neal Dow for many years to make sweepinfi charges of that sort without any attèmpt to sastain them by proof. We are uuablu moreover to accapt Jlr. Dows' roseate picture of the success of prohibitioti in Maine. In the interior of the state, as we have often said, the sale lias, do doubt, been largely suppressed. Uut Iu tho large cities, like Portland and Hangor, rum is and has been rampant during the entire history of prohibition in the Mate. It is probably true that the ilistilleries and breweries have been driven out, for institutionsof that character eannot well prevail even against spasinoilic atlacks. lint the rum shops have prevalled atrainst such attacks and all attacks ; and wlienever tbere has been a temporary or partial dearth theclub-room lias inteiveued to keep up the business of drunkard making. That this is so is the testimony of unprejudiced witnesses who have visited Maine periodically during the past quartir of a century. It is the testimony also of the newspapers throughout New Kngland, which are rarely free frora items sbowiog the prevaleiice ol intemperance in Maine citie. The Boston Herald, for instance, which we piek upat random, notes the fnct that "Portland, Maine, had more arresta last year for crimes commilled under the inUueiice of liquor than Charleston, Ö. C, though the latter is a much larger city than the former.'1 8uggestions of this character can be found every week in some New England journal and by no means exclusively in the anti])rohibition papers. The organs of prohibltion and of temperance are coustaiitly bewaillBK the drunkenness in Maine cities and the non-enforcementof the law. Such testimony Neal Dow will probably dispose of with the charge that it is prejadieed or "deals unfairly with the lacls" though he himself gives, indirectly, similar tr-tiniony in his iudictuient of the "Kepüblican bo.-ses." If these "unscrupulous bosses" were unsuccessful iu their opposition to prohibition Mr. Dow would laujrh at them Instead of denouncing them. The fact that he does denounce tliiin shows that he believes they have sueceeded in a very greatmeasure in preventlng the enforcement of prohibition. lint wliatever Neal Dow may think of this kind of testimony there are facts which he caunot gainsay showing that prohibition is very fur iïorn being a success in Maine. One of these is the constant agitation of the Prohibitiouists in M line for more law. Although prohibitiou has been on tlie stafute books nearly thirty-llve years there hal been no scssion of the legislature since tlie liist law was jiassed without a ileinaiiil tor additiona) enactments, and very few gessions at which Botne such enaCtmenta were not passed. And to(hiy, though ]rohihition lata the Constitntion, títere is still the same demand Ii din problbltionllU and ttmoerauce organi.ations tin more law. At the anima! meeting of the Grand Lodge of Templare recently held at the capital of the staW, the Portland, (Maine), Advertiser is our authority: "Tlie comuiittee on enforcement of the llquor law reportcd in favor of pwllliouiug thu legiilatur for au amendment, substitutlnjr imprisonmcnt for a fine in case of a lirst offense and taking from municipal judges the discretion wliicli tney tiow have.'1 What does this mean if not that the exlsttng l:iw wit h the Constitutional anienduient behind it falls of its object? There is anotber pregnant fact that is shown by the censu9 returns; and though it may Dot be accepted {(enerally as conclusive, Neal Dow and hls co-prohibitionists are bound to so accept it. For it is a part of their theory that pauperism is the resu.lt of Intemperance and one of their strongest argument for prohibition Is the necessity of prerenting pauperisni. Incidentally in the very comniunication above published Mr. Dow shows his faith In this theory by the stress he lays upon the niouey saWng alleged to be effected l)y prohibition. According to his tbeory therefore, if prohibitiou is a success its success shouki appear in areduction of pauperism. Uufortuuately for the policy and ts upholders the reductiou does uot appear. In 1850, the year before prohibitio was adopted in Maiue, the state had a population of 583,169 and 2,001 pau pars, or one in 289. In 1880, after tweuty-flve years of prohibition, the population had ncreased to 648,938. But the paupers :iad increased mor rapidly. According to the census they numbered 3,211, or one in 203 of the population. Clearly, then, prohibition in Malue bas failed in one of its most important fuuctlons. The census shows another interesting and instructive fact. Not only has pauperism iucreased in Maine under prolibition, but the ratio of paupers tb population Is largely in excets of the ratio tn other states where no such efforts have been made to prohibir. The two states nearest to Maine in population are West Virginia with (18,4j!) and Connecticut with 622,700. The number of paupers In the foriner in 1880 was 1,197 and n the latter l,7i)0, the two combined faling more than 200 short of Maine's contingent. In New Hampshire and Vermont, the combined population of which are about equal to that of Maine the agfregate i:umber of paupers was 1,785, or uit liltle more thau huil the uumber in Maine. These states, with the exception of West Virginia, have all made eö'orts at arohibition, but nonesostrenuousasthose made in Maine, and the inference is a fair oue that pauperism most prevails in the statu where the prohibition policy is most strongly insisted on; and it is au equally "air inference that the state of most proïibitory policy is the state of least temierance success. These inferences are strengthened by a glance at Michigan, with nearly twice Maine's population, with a tax law and only two-thirds of Maine's paupers; at Maryland, with nearly flfty per cent. greater population no prohibition and less than half Maine's paupers, and at South Carolina, with lbout the game population as Maryland, no prohibitiou and only 720 paupers. Neal Dow is right in his assuinption hat The Free Press is opposed to prohijition. But it is so because of a convicion, bom of facts like those given, that roliibitinn is, of all the weaponsused in ighting the demon of intrmperauce, the least effective.