Radio Script #633

Little Talks on Common Things

December 20, 1964

Few states in the Union have had such long and interesting experience in the handling of the sale and use of intoxicating beverages as has the State of Maine.

Because Maine was the first state to adopt state-wide prohibition, the statute became known allover the country as the Maine law. That law forbade the sale of all liquor except for medicinal or mechanical use. There was always difficulty of enforcement, because for many years there was no state-wide enforcing authority. Whether the law was enforced or its violation winked at depended upon the attitude and the integrity of the sixteen different county sheriffs, and in the cities and larger towns also upon the local police power.

Yet from the beginning the legislature saw that the state as a whole must be concerned about equal and impartial enforcement of all the statutes, including those that were unpopular in certain circles. My neighbor, Dr. Harold Boardman, former President of the University of Maine, and during the 1930’s chairman of the Maine Liquor Commission, recently called my attention to Maine liquor reports dating far back before the time when he was in the Augusta office. They reveal clearly that difficulties with liquor have always been with us.

In the early days of Maine Prohibition there was a single liquor commissioner. In 1872 that office was held by Eaton Shaw. In his report that year to the Governor and Council, Shaw said: “In some localities our prohibitory laws are being better enforced than formerly. Whether the quantity of intoxicating liquors used has been largely diminished or not, it is apparent that in many places there is less intoxication, and less disorder and crime. Our city and town liquor agencies are generally well conducted and are mostly supplied from this office. Some of the agencies probably do purchase also from outside sources, with little regard for the purity of the liquors or their fitness for medicinal use. Such abuses can be stopped if the citizens in the offending localities will see that it is done.”

When the Prohibition Law was first passed in 1851, the state continued to use the system of liquor agencies appointed by the municipal officers of all towns and cities that should annually vote to maintain a local liquor agency. Before 1851 those agencies were authorized to purchase liquor wherever they chose, and dispense it according to local restrictions only. But with the coming of the new law, no town could conduct an agency for any sale of liquor except for medicinal and mechanical purposes, and all stock was supposed to be purchased from the commissioner.

The Commissioner’s report for 1872 shows that his total sales throughout the state amounted to slightly more than a hundred thousand dollars. As one would expect, the largest sales were in Portland, $11,000; Lewiston second with $8,000 and Bangor third with $6,000.

Let us see how our own part of Central Maine compared with these larger cities. The Waterville agency bought $2,800 worth of liquor. No sales at all were reported to Fairfield, Winslow, Vassalboro or China, and of course Oakland was then a part of Waterville. In 1872 this community seems to have been surrounded by bone dry territory. However, one did not have to travel far to find other municipal liquor agencies. Canaan did $118 worth of liquor business in 1872; Cornville’s exceeded $200; Smithfield sold over $500 worth; and Palermo the staggering sum of $2,200. It is very interesting to note some of the very small towns included in that 1872 report: Denmark, Lovell, Appleton, Belmont, Greenwood, Hebron, Kingsbury, Mercer, Palmyra, St. Albans. Vienna and Wellington. Equally interesting is the fact that several good sized towns had no liquor agency in 1872. Among them were Houlton, Caribou, Presque Isle, Ellsworth, Biddeford, York. Wells and Kennebunk.

In 1905 the Legislature established what was then called the Enforcement Commission, a body of three persons appointed by the Governor, to administer enforcement of the liquor laws. The Commission was authorized to appoint deputy commissioners. The statute said: “The commission. upon being satisfied that the local authorities fail to enforce the law against the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors in any city or town of the state. shall instruct the deputy commissioners in the county to enforce the law.” The law also gave the governor power to appoint a special attorney to prosecute cases for the commission in any county where the elected county attorney failed to act. The statute carefully pointed out that the new law gave no relief to sheriffs and municipal officers in respect to their duty to enforce the liquor laws. Why then was the new law necessary? Flagrant, open violation of the liquor laws, with the knowledge, if not with the actual connivance of sheriffs and municipal officers had become a state-wide scandal. What then happened was to be expected — more or less warfare between the state commission and local authorities, during which only the rum sellers profited. An idea of what occurred is revealed in the Commission’s report for the year 1906.

Concerning Androscoggin County the report said: “We were in doubt as to the position of Sheriff Cummings. He told us he intended to enforce the law. On May 22 we told him we were sure more could be done. He said he was doing more than we could do, that if we came into Lewiston’s Lincoln Street we would be clubbed out. The Sheriff did appoint two additional deputies, but we noted no change. When we so informed Sheriff Cummings on June 14, he asked us to come in and see what we could do. We then sent in three of our own deputies. On June 24 they made several arrests. In Theodule Rancourt’s place there was a large room and three private rooms with tables. At each table were persons drinking liquor. Men were lined up at the bar drinking. There were fifty or more men in the place. Two assistants were behind the bar, and another served men at the tables. Whiskey and gin were in a closet behind the bar, and under the bar were more than 300 bottles of beer. In the cellar were a barrel of whiskey tapped, cases of beer and whiskey unopened, barrels of beer untapped, and some 30 or 40 barrels of beer iced. This was the only place raided because the word spread so fast that the doors of other saloons were at once locked and their lights put out. Later seizures, however, showed that the other saloons continued to operate.

“During the year our deputies seized 1,888 gallons of wh is key and 2,600 gallons of beer in Lewiston alone. Of 435 persons arrested, 163 were convicted.”

Now let us see what the Commission had to say about liquor conditions in Kennebec County in 1906: “We received many complaints about the inactivity of the sheriff of Kennebec County. In Waterville there was friction between the mayor and the local deputy sheriff. On May 20 the sheriff announced that no special deputies would be appointed in the county. The Mayor of Waterville asked for our assistance, stating that he could get no action from the sheriff. The sheriff willingly told us that indeed he had done nothing in Waterville and that he had not seen his Waterville deputy for two months. The sheriff said feeling was so intense that he had to rely on the local authorities for any enforcement in Waterville. Complaints continued and the Waterville mayor again urged for direct action by the commission. On the night of September 2 two of our deputies searched a place in Waterville without results. The place had evidently been tipped off.”

As for other places in Kennebec County the report said: “We received many complaints about conditions in Augusta, Gardiner and Randolph. The city marshal of Gardiner told us that conditions just across the river in Randolph where he had no jurisdiction, were a great annoyance. We seized small quantities of liquor at two places in Augusta, and ten gallons of whiskey and 120 bottles of beer at a place near Togus. During the entire year we seized only 78 gallons of whiskey in Waterville while getting 720 gallons in Augusta. Yet we have reason to believe that in Waterville conditions are fully as bad as they are in the State Capital.”

Perhaps the passage of sixty years makes it inoffensive to mention the names of some of those prosecuted for sale of liquor in Waterville in 1906. Anyhow the names and the cases are in the public domain for anyone to read in the Commission’s published report for that year. Wilfred Langlois was fined $300 and sentenced to three months imprisonment. Edward Ouillette pleaded nolo contendere and was fined $250. Vedo Vigue was indicted and convicted, but given a suspended sentence. William Bolduc appealed his conviction, but the law court upheld it. Two cases of common nuisance in regard to sale of liquor were not pressed. Two men, Frank Folsom and Frank Dumont, were convicted in the Waterville municipal court for transportation of liquor. They appealed and the case was still pending when the commission’s report went to press.

Two years later the commissioners reported that 1908 had been a good year for enforcement in Waterville and in other communities. But they couldn’t sayKennebec the same for Androscoggin. Of that county they said: “Conditions have been very bad. It was common knowledge that liquor was sold freely in lewiston. This was commented on by the public press and was the subject of general remark. We made a special investigation and located 130 liquor shops in Lewiston, and we estimated there were at least 50 other places called kitchen barrooms. We ordered 77 cases of search and sei zure. We bel i eve we have closed the open bars.”

Well, that’s the story of Maine liquor enforcement in the 1870’s and in the first decade of this century. Were conditions concerning intoxicants better or worse then than they are now? Probably both better and worse — that is, better in some respects and worse in others. It is all pretty much a matter of opinion, and without making any comparison between past and present, we can be assured that we have all we can do to maintain decency and sobriety today.

Year: 1964