The bill was referred to the Committee on Temperance and able arguments in its favor were made by Gen. Gorham, L. Boynton, Hon. Nathan Webb and C. G. Yeaton, all men highly respected by the people of the state, of the strictest integrity, and with no inducement to make other than an impartial statement. Three gentlemen who have successively held the office of county attorney of Cumberland county for about fifteen years past and who are all Republicans, have unanimously testified against the present prohibition law. They are Gen. Chas. T. Matlock, C. F. Libby, Esq., and Nathan Webb. Similar views are held by such men as Gen. W. S. Tilton of Logan Springs, Judge Goddard, postmaster of Portland, M. P. Frank of Portland, Speaker of the House, Dr. Edw. Dana and many other influential citizens. No party, however, was willing to go to the people on this issue and the bill failed to pass, although there is good reason to hope that when the next attempt is made some who have previously upheld the present law will have learned to take a different view. Much new light is constantly thrown on the influence of the present statute, and can hardly fail to produce an adequate effect. A minority report of the committee was presented and contains so much of interest and importance that we cannot do better than to reproduce it in these pages. Its statements are those of men who understand the subject of which they treat and are worth a careful reading. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON TEMPERANCE, OF THE FIFTY-EIGHTH LEGISLATURE OF MAINE, 1879. “The Committee on Temperance have listened to the able and exhaustive arguments presented on both sides of the matter in hearing, and the minority of said committee respectfully present their views in dissent from the report of the majority. The law regulating the sale of intoxicating liquors, commonly known as the prohibitory liquor law has had a trial of more than a quarter of a century. Its severity has no parallel in the laws of any other civilized country. Although enforced with all the power of the state, court records show that the number of prosecutions and convictions is increasing, at great expense to the tax payers. Country towns pay their share for the enforcement of this law in cities without corresponding benefit to themselves. The cost of its execution is a burden on an over-taxed people. A detailed statement which is hereto annexed shows the cost for officers to enforce the law.”