The organ of the temperance reform. (Cincinnati, O. [Ohio]) 1852-1853, 1852-04-30
From the .Ksnia Tosohlirhs.
The constitutionality Of the Maine
LIQUOR Law in Ohio.

law for the suppression Of the liquor traffic
n this State, similar to the Maine law, are
onndsa in the belief, or pretended belief, that
ncb,a law would be unconsntuhonal ltispFo-
,osed in this artcle, as briefly as possioles TO
,alnts All such objections BY the Maine law,
vs are 70 understand, law fully as broad and
,ouaIly as stringent in its provisions az thar
nw Is. without being confined 70 it in every
,articaIar. Would such lava law similar
o the Maine luw-be constitutional
Asa basis for the argument Of this question
glance at the nature and powers Of our federal
md State governments win be necessary
While both governments operateupon The same
subjects Or citizens, the purposes Of their organ.
zation are different and distinct, as is also the
manner in which their respective powers are
derived. The federal government is govern
ment Of delegated powers; but the State GOV.
ernrnent is government Of reserved poweN
The powers not delegated to the Uniisd sta
by the Constitution. nor prohibited bg 4
States. are reserved 10 the States reapech /
or to the people. The federal government is
supreue within the scope Of its delegated pow
ers, and the State governments are equally
supreme in the exercise Of those powers net del'
sgatea by them, nor iahibited to them, by the
constitution Of the United States. In determin'
inc then whether the Legislature Of Ohio has the
power to suppress the traffic OF intoxicating u
ouors, the first question to be answered is
whether the exercise of such power would
conflict with any Of the powers delegated to the
federal government, or inhibited to the States
by the federal Constitution If not, then the
pOwer is most unquesdonably reserved to State
That State laws, restricting. and even going
the length of total prohibition of commerce in
Intoxicating liquors within the limits Of the
State, are not in conflict with any of the pow
ers, or any of the commercial laws, or treaHes
Of the federal government, has been fully de-
cided by the Supreme Court Of the United
States, in the cases brought before that Court
from the States of Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
and New Hampshire full report Of which
casos is to be found in Howard's Reports vol.
s, page 5O4.--Each Of these States had enacted
laws prohibiting the sale Of spIrituous liquors,
without license being first obtained, in less than
! certain quantities. Il was objected that these
, laws conAicted with laws Of the federal govern
, ment and its treaties, which permitted and au-
thorized the Importation Of spirituous liquors
from foreign countries that the right to import
carried with it the right to sell that the restrc
tion or prohibition OF the sale of such liquors
i within the States impaired or nuli6ed the right
{ to import; and that the exercise Of such power
s bv the States would impair the power Of the
e federal government ITO regulate commerce
+ with foreign States, and among the several
States" The question was brought before the
A Supreme Court of the United States for final
adjudication and that Court held the State laws
to be constitutional and valid, Chief Justice
{ Taney, in delivering the opinion Of the eouI
in all these cases says; q Every State may re
: gulate its own internal traffic, according to it
+ own Judgment, and upon its own views Of til,
s. interest and well being Of its citizens" Agai
n he says, in special reference to the New Hamp
C shire case, although the gin sold was an i'm
e port from another State, and Congress ha
II clearly the power to regulate such importatoni
= under the grant of power to regulate commerc
among the States, yet as Congress has mud
no regulation on the subject, the traffic in th
70 article may be lawfully regulated by the Stat
d as soon as il is landed in its territory, and
le tax imposed npon it, or license required, {
IN the sale altogether prohibited, according to II
e. policy, which the State may suppose to be i
e, interest or duty to pursue" Mr.. Justice Nj
III Lean, in his separate opinion in the same case
n, says: "After the import has passed out Of q
ct, hands Of the importer, whether it remainin Il
y. original package or cask, or be broken up, b
n comes mingled with the property Of the Stat
an and is subject to its la,Os." Again he says s.
oh a foreign article be injurious to the health al
H. morals of the community, State may in Il
D exercise of that great and conservative poll
hu power, which lies at the foundation of its pro
as perity, prohibit The sale Of IT," More authoriti
ce might be added to these opinions but this n
d. necessary 10 do So
Our first inquiry is therefore answered by d
highest judicial authority in the land, and Il
answer is that intoxicating liquors, althoul
recognized as articles Of lawful commerce,
IA property by the laws and treaties of the feder
nc ~ government, may after they pass from Il
II. hand of the importer thereof, be restricted
ur their sale, or be totally prohibited from beir
C. again sold, within any Of the States Of tn
a' Union, by virtue of the sovereign police pow,
e. of each State within its own territorial limit
n The Maine liquor law is not, therefore,
10 conflict with any of the federal rights Of the c
ne tizen, and does not conflict with any Of the De
TO egated powers Of the federal government,
with any of it's laws or treaties with ioHeic
States.
e. The power therefore to enact such law +,
in mains in the State and is vested in the legi
ct laure Of the State, unless the Constitution
rs the State itself prohibits the exercise Of sue
ar power. Does the Constitution of Ohio do this
n This question must be answered more in deta
than the other, as it is The important questiC
in the controversy. There is but one provisiC
80 : in our State Constitution having direct refe
~ ence to the liquor traffic, which is as follow
D. No license to traffic in intoxicating liquor
IN shall hereafter be granted in this State; b
'ss the General Assembly may, by law, prOVi
We against evils resulting therefrom" Now it
said that because, the Maine law authoriz
the appointment of an agent in each town Al
a city to sell spirituous liquors for mechanic
,is and medicinal purposes, it amounts to grant,
license to traffic in such liquors and wor
be violation of the first clause Of the sect
of the Constitution just quoted. Let US nj
yer inquire what that clause means. Words,
tor reason Of a particular use in the law, may
zen quire peculiar and limited meaning and VII
irs used, must be understood in that sense, in q
ing struing statutes. Blackstone saws H there