The mountain sentinel. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1844-1853, 1852-03-25
THE AyTI-LIeUOR LAW.


The Senate Of this State has passed the first
section of bill ''to prohibit the sale and man
ufucture of Intoxicating drinks" which is sim
liar in substance to the Maine Liquor Law
Whilst we are opposed to the passage of any
law by our State Legislature which determines
as to what we shall eat and drink, we would also
be glad to assist in any measure calculated to
drive from our midst the evil of intemperance,
provided it does not interfere with the rights of
property os either majority or minority. The
New York Courier and Enquirer contains the
following constitutional argument against the
law:
Chief Justice Taney never hazarded his .judg-
ment in declaring unconstitutional the Law, as lit
orally defined, now in operation in Maine. The
Federal Constitution expressly provides that
1.-The right Of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
reasonable searches and seizures, shall not be ~
olated and no warrants shall issue but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation
and particularly describing the place to be,
searched and the, persons and things to be sci
zed." The Law of Maine requires no such
oath or affirmation. On the contrary, it is made
the duty Of the mayor, alderman, or other mu-
nicipal officer of the town, to proceed upon this
mission of search and seizure at the instigation
Of malice or suspicion, and without any legal
obligations or restraint whatever
The Federal Constitution stipulates s.that pri-
vate property shall not be taken for public use,
without just compensation" nor shall crimi-
inal ''be deprived of fe liberty or propert with
l..
that ''no action Of any kind shall be maintained
or in part, for intoxicating spirituous liquors
sold in any other State or county whatever, nor
shall any action of any kind be had or maintain
ed in any court in this State for the recovery or
possession or intoxicating of spirituous liquors
or the value thereof" These palpaple contra
yentions of Federal rights cannot be overlook
ed but whether the advocate of the Maine
Law recognised the binding force of the Consti-
tuition, is another question,
But again: The Constitution declares that
Sin all criminal prosecutions and the Law of
Maine makes the selling of liquor a crime
''the accused shall enjoy the right to speedy
and public trial by impartial jury of the State
and District within which the crime shall have
been com mitted-" The Law of Maine guaran-
tees to the criminal no such right as an impartial
jury trial, or any jury trial, except In cases of
appeal. The criminal is first tried by the Judge
magistrate, who is arbiter of his guilt or in
nocence, and on this magisterial decision, the
life, liberty, and property of the defendant
depends This is a direct infringement of the
Constitution but the act goes further, and ex-
cludes from the jury on appeal cases, all persons
engaged in the traffic of liquor, and even those
who are under the ban of suspicion. How then
can a jury be impartial, which is made up en-
tirely of er parte elements
The Federal Constitution further stipulates,
that excessive bail shall not be required, nor
nor excessive fines imposed nor shall cruel and
unusual punishments be inflicted.
The law of Maine makes the servant of a sell
Ter of liquor equally culpable with the master,
no matter under what circumstances his conduct
comes in conflict with the act. He cannot have |
no appeal, neither has he redress. He cannot
have his case disposed of by jury, because of
the penalties and risks by which his suit is sur
rounded Heis met at every step by fine, the
threat of Imprisonment, or ultimate certainty
of prejudiced panel against his appeal and
for these reasons, one servant out of ten thou
sand could scarcely succeed in obtaining the ne
cessary bail and collateral securities reouired
by the act.