The northern galaxy. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1844-1848, 1845-04-30

within the conceded right of Congress toreg-
ulate foreign commerce, permission is gran
ted to import foreign spirits and wines into
the country, and by consequence, foreign ma
lions have the right 10 send their spirits and
wines TO this country. By this importation,
certain men provide themselves with bust
ness, and a tritie OF revenue accrues to the
general government. Now, for state to
enact laws, which will prohibit or cur
tail, tcithm her bounds, the sale of these i'm
ported articles, is, to conflict with the ma
tional legislation, 10 infringe upon rights
guaranteed by said legislation, and to dimin-
ish the national revenue.
There is then nothing in this argument,
which pretends 10 show, that the prohibition
OF the home manufactured article in the line of
intoxicating liquor, is Unconstitutional. Let
this be noted. Even the tender mercies of
"those who plead for Baal," can throw no
arm oil protection ever the 60 1-2 millions OF
gallons Of spirits, wine and strong beer,
which are manufactured in this country.
Ii is BOT the home, butthe foreign article,
which like true patriots, they would protect !;
only l-3 out OF &c millions of gallons are
admitted to the covert of their mawkish liber-
atty. But with regard to the imported ar
ticle, what weight has the argument? How
easily might a child ask, does the national
Legislature legaliZe The sale or ONLY the i'm por-
tation, otforeign spirits and wines? Does it
in any way guaranty the sale after importa-
ton, and thus make it safe business for the
importer, and for the foreign producer, or
does il not take it for granted, that the I'M
porter and the foreign shipper will under
stand his business, and will see if there be
lott af ba in
II might be asked, do our state laws prohibit
or only regulate the sale ofthe article. sand
again, there might be reference made 10
analogous cases, in the range OF national leg
islation, about which there is no dispute.
For instance, up TO a certain time, (lS0S)
sldreS might be imported into the United
States, under the sanction Of ND tioDal legis-
lation-y ca ! under the almost sacred COM
promise which The constitution itself emhod-
ied-bu: several states long before the pre-
scribed time, prohibited their introduction
within their bounds; and this without COM
plant, SO far as appears, iromeven the slave
trader; and with no attempt on the part oil
his. Juris-consultus, 10 prove The prohibition
unconstitutional. Still again, and with in
creasing seriousness it might be asked, are
the states, 10 do nothing for their own adj
vantage-the Sovereign states TO move no
farther in the career Of moral improvement,
than they are led by those who occupy the
seats ofnational Legislation Aasi for the
people; Alas ! for our children, il on point
vi such magnitude, in Il moral point OF view,
as the temperance reformation, the state, and
of course, the citizens of the staIe can move
no faster than do our national Legislators,
many Of whom, il is 10 be feared, are the very
personifcatious of moral corrnplion-infi-
nitely below the majority ol'their constitu-
ents, who by 4 strange iniatuation, are viii
ling 10 he represented in the national cnun
ellis, and before the face of the representa-
tivcs of other nations, and. TO have laws
passed for their government by men whom
they would not admit as inmates, into their
family circles.
We are not then, annihiated by this ar
gumcnt! So far from 1t, the argument IL
self, is a cause of graduation among the
friends of temperance. That that greatest
of constitutional logicans, has been only
able TO elaborate in his gigantic mind, an ar
gument which has not even the power 10
perplex the simple, is proof how weak the
cause which for the sake Of money, lie has
condescended 10 plead, against the obvious
interests ofthe state, whichlor so many years,
Las delighted to pour henors upon his head (;
and Of consequence, it is proof how strong the
position, in respect 10 the use OF legislative
aid, on which we stand, and how fearless we
should be IN maintaining 1t.
= Mr.. Webster, it seems from his argument,
considers the Massachusetts law as PROHIBITING.
Let it bedislinctly understood, that the Vermont