Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1837-12-27

u ~
regardless Of the interests Of the commune
ty was never thought Of by its trainers as
Implied in this article. Article 9th asserts
That every member Of society hath a
right 70 be protected in the enjoyment OF
life, liberty, and properly" But this arti-
Gle gives no saaction to such an exercise Of
liberty or such mode Of acquiring prop
erty as Is detrimental to .i,e public welfare.
Indeed i was designed to have, and will |
admit Of, no application whatever to the
subject under consideration--as the perusal |
OF the whole article will individually prove.
Section 7th Of the "Plan Of Govnrnment,"
contains an oath or affirmation TO be taken !
and subscribed By each representative before
that body proceed to business: "You -
do solemnly swear, Tor affirm that as |
member Of this Assembly you will not pro-
pose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolu-
ton, which shall appear to you injurious to
the people; nor do or consent TO any act or
thing whatever that shall have a tendency
TO lessen or abridge their rights and priEi-
leges, as declared by the constitution of this
State," &c. But does this oath restrain the
Legislature from prohibiting the traffic in
ardent splrits7 l question whether any
man will be hardy enough to assert it. Who
can believe that the repeal of the license
law, and the enactment OF a prohibitory
statute, would be "injurious 10 the people"
IL might temporarily injure the pecuniary
interests Of those who now make and vend
distilled liquors. But would il injure those
, who buy, to have this article of traffic ban
ished7 Would it injure their families 2
> Would It injure the taxable part of the
. community, 10 have the most prolific source
Of pauPerism aud crime dried up7 For a
y law To be "inytrions to the people" it must
be injurious 10 majority Of the people
or injurious to more persons than are bene-
; fitted by il. Otherwise the law which pro-
: hibits counterfeiting is "injurious to the
u people, for It most assuredly injures the
T business Of counterfeitiug. And as 10 such
J. a ProhibitOE statute having ga tendency to
= lessen or abridge the rights and privileges
'e Of the people, it must be admitted that such
20 q statute would "lessen" or rather take
% away the legal "righ," (for no man can
n have any other rightly TO sell distilled liquors
N as drink; and It would also "a6ridge'
L the privilege" Of drinking distilled Ii.
a. tquors, as freely as heretofore-not otherwise
at however than BY making that species o.
be drink more difficult to be obtained, jus
ne as the prohibition to sell lottery ticket.
he abridges" the "pripiIege" of lottery gam
81 bling, BY rendering it difficult to obtain
Dr. tickets. Bul il is worthy Of notice that tn
representatives oath has reference only t.
% "righu and privileges as declared by III,
lot constitution Of the State" But in the con
a stitution Of the State there is no declaration
q Of the fright" Of any man TO sell, or III,
n "priDilege" Of any man to drink arden
A. spirits. This oath therefore presents NJ
40 obstacle 10 the introduction BY the Legisla
in ture Of this destructive traffic.
4 And now TO what else shall we be refer
u red7 Ihave carefully examined the who'll
'e- constitution, and the above-cited are tn
NJ only clauses | ind in it, which by any pos
ne sible construction can be supposed to pre-
n hibit the desired action Of the Legislature
'oi But il may be said that srch prohibition
as is sought would be unconstitutional, be
re- canse il would be the exercise Of power nc
- belonging to the Legislature. Sir, it shout
by be remembered that there are but two cor
ne stitutional limitations Of State legislatiy
-, power. l. The State Legislature must nc
are encroaeh upon the powers conceded to th
on general government But no one will Or,
tend that the control Of any local traffic
,n- embraced among the powers of the geneu
,se government. 2. 1t must enac, no law
n. which violate the State constitution. Br
b., we have already seen that prohibition {
&C. the traffic in ardent spirits would not cor
az diet with any express prorisions or geners
-, principles Of the State constitution. w
a might safely rest the constitutional arg,
- ment here.
the But this is not all which full view ,
ty the subject demands. Not only is the pr,
up- posed introduction Of the traffic in arder
ess spirits not opposed to any express provi
mi ions Of the constitution, nor to any of i
low general principles-not only would il be q
APP assumption Of power not belonging to Il
an, Legislsture-not only is all this true, b.
d is the power over this whole subject 10 co.
Nv troll, limit and interdict, If found necessa
" to for the public good, is expressly conced,
NJ TO the Legislature in the constitution, al
By has been repeatedly exercised BY the Leg
nor lature.
the leave this branch Of the argument wit
4 In n,,t an additional word confident that r.