<\/p>\n
It is well known that Maine was the first state in the nation to pass a law prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages. That law, fostered by Portland’s mayor, Neal Dow, was passed in 1851 and strengthened in 1855. With very few changes the law remained valid in Maine for 80 years until the repeal of national prohibition. Then Maine decided to follow the wave that had swept the whole country and repealed its own prohibitory law. Let us today take a look at some aspects of the law that was enacted by Maine a full decade before the Civil War.<\/p>\n
The law had to allow for the legitimate sale of alcohol for medicinal and mechanical purposes. To make that possible, the law provided for a liquor agent to be appointed by each municipality in the state. The agent could sell liquor only on medical prescription or to licensed manufacturers who could prove alcohol necessary in their manufacturing process. He could not give credit but must sell for cash only. He must have the purchaser give evidence of legal right to buy. No municipality could have more than one liquor agent. After the Maine law was repealed in the 1930’s the state set up a Liquor Control Commission to see that liquor was sold only as provided by the new law that established state stores. The commission controlled licensing, purchase of liquors for the state warehouse for distribution to the state stores, and managed those stores themselves.<\/p>\n
It was the duty of the Commission to control, not expand the sale of liquor. Recently we have seen a complete reversal in that philosophy. From a control agency, the Commission has changed to an agency for promoting liquor sales. On numerous occasions the Commission has taken measures to increase sales. It pushed through a law permitting the Commission to set up private liquor agencies in places too small to support a state store. It has frequently overruled local authorities concerning granting of licenses. It secured favorable discount prices for a state store near the New Hampshire border. The present avowed
\nintent of the Commission is to constantly increase liquor sales.<\/p>\n
Originally enforcement of the liquor laws was left to the State Commission. When their sales policy became evident, the Legislature took enforcement out of their hands and placed it under the State Police. When the Maine law was originally passed in 1851, the state made sure that no local agent would have inducement to increase sales and perhaps wink at the law. The legislators insisted that no agent should receive a commission on sales, but should be paid an annual salary regardless of the amount of sales.<\/p>\n
When Neal Dow started his campaign, he had difficulty getting support from the churches. While some clergy and church laity did heartily support him, many others wanted to continue to give private retailers, especially the roadside general stores, the right to keep on selling liquor as they had done ever since Maine was first settled. In fact. in the middle of the 19th century, many clergymen were themselves social drinkers.<\/p>\n
Among Dow’s most enthusiastic and most active supporters was the Society of Friends, whose Maine yearly meeting, as early as 1840 had passed the following resolution: “In consideration of the ruinous effects of the sale of ardent spirits providing sorrow and misery in many families. none of our members shall contribute to this great evil by being in any way associated in the manufacture of ardent spirits or selling their grains for such manufacture. A Friend must avoid the company of those who supply drams and strong drink. Influenced by liquor, those persons become wild savages. Anyone who drinks in moderation may become a drunkard. Even moderate drinking sets a bad example for others and thus contributes to the evil.<\/p>\n
Thus it was the Society of Friends that was the first religious sect in Maine to take a public stand for the then unpopular position of total abstinence. The earliest public concern about liquor was with regard to the native Indians, not the White Settlers. And that concern was not for benefit of the Indians, but of the settlers. Very early the red men learned to cherish liquor, and when drunk they committed all sorts of depredations. It was in the interest of the whites to keep the Indians sober. Long before the Revolution, every American colony had enacted laws against sale of liquor to Indians.<\/p>\n
In 1802, when most eastern Indians were on reservations, Congress itself took note of the situation by passing this resolution: “The President of the U.S. shall take means from time to time to prevent the sale of liquors to any person of an Indian tribe.” In 1815 Congress passed another law: “Any person who shall have a still or boiler intended to be used in distilling spirituous liquors,or shall use any such still or vessel within the boundaries of the U.S. reserved for any Indian tribe, shall be subject to a fine of $5,000. Indian agents
\nshall cause to be prosecuted all traders accused of selling liquor to any Indians.”<\/p>\n
In 1856 the Maine governor, while asserting that the law was working well, still felt there were too many violations. He said: “No rum seller is in business to benefit humanity. He is in it for profit. He must be held responsible for the damage his traffic causes. The penalties of the present. law are too lenient. I propose a law that will demand prison sentences, not merely fines. No fines alone can stop the continuance of such profitable sales.”<\/p>\n
In 1858 Neal Dow was still complaining about the lack of prison support, “we still have citizens who scoff at the law and clandestinely violate it. We can always expect that element to be among us. But what is more discouraging is the highminded, religious church members who flaunt the law. Too many of our Maine clergy have as yet failed to support it.”<\/p>\n
Today I fear there are few Maine people who know anything about Neal Dow. Born in a Quaker family in Portland in 1804, he was 36 years old when the Maine Quakers made their public pronouncement against liquor. In 1837 he took his own vigorous stand from which he never departed. He decided that moral suasion, hitherto used by liquor haters, was not enough. The state must take legal action.<\/p>\n
In 1839 Dow pushed for anti-liquor action by the Portland City Council. but they turned him down. Four years later in 1843 he was successful and Portland refused to renew or grant any additional liquor licenses within the city limits. Then Dow felt the time had come for statewide action, and he tried to get the legislature to make liquor selling a crime. His bill passed the House but failed in the Senate. In 1846 Dow did better. The Legislature passed a law stopping the licensing of liquor sales.<\/p>\n
But that law proved woefully ineffective. The penalties were trivial compared with liquor profits. More and more the law was openly flaunted. In 1851, after Dow had become Mayor of Portland, he pushed through the legislature the first effective prohibitory law securing a vote of 86 to 40 in the House and 18 to 10 in the Senate. What still remained in doubt was enforcement of the law. All over the state Dow’s home city of Portland was looked upon as the crucial place to judge effectiveness of the law.<\/p>\n
In 1851 Portland was a busy seaport that often saw several hundred sailors on its streets at one time. It also had a growing foreign population determined to have its liquor. Dow was equally determined that the new law should be enforced. In spite of threats on his life, he personally conducted liquor raids. The law thus became rigidly enforced in Maine’s largest city.<\/p>\n
The law, of course, allowed sales by liquor agents for medicinal purposes. In 1855, when Dow approved an order of liquors for the city agency amounting to $1600, opponents viciously attacked him accusing him of buying a quantity of liquor far beyond medicinal and mechanical needs. Dow was accused of securing the liquor, then selling it to the agency at a huge profit. A mob gathered to march on the agency and seize the liquor and a large detachment of police was called out to protect the building.<\/p>\n
When the mob decided to break down the agency door. the police opened fire and a member of the mob was killed. The mayor then called out the local militia company. Assailed by rocks and sticks, the militia would have been severely injured if not allowed to use their firearms. But the troops harmed no one. After repeated shooting into the air, they finally dispersed the mob.<\/p>\n
That was not the end for Neal Dow. He was accused of causing the death of the man killed by the police. He was never tried on that charge, but he was tried for having liquor in his personal possession. The court found that the accusation was not supported by evidence and Dow won the case.<\/p>\n
While metropolitan dailies were generally critical of Dow in the riot incident, the New York Independent was more understanding. It said: “There is but one role to be observed in dealing with a mob. They must be dispersed after proper warning, and by powder and ball if necessary. In some of the preliminary steps mayor Dow may have been imprudent, but at the last, when a mob was raging against property of the city, he could only act exactly as he did. No matter what caused the riot, there was only one way to put down the mob, and Mayor Dow used that way. The lesson will be salutary.”<\/p>\n
Both physically and politically Neal Dow survived the vicious threats against his liberty and even his life, and today he is honored as the author of the first prohibitory law passed by any American state. And with that we say goodbye until next week.<\/p>\n
Year: 1982<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Read the script for “Little Talks” program #1316, Broadcast on May 30, 1982<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":405,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[35294,35296],"tags":[],"builder_content":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10135"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/405"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10135"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10135\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10135"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10135"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10135"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}