The organ of the temperance reform. (Cincinnati, O. [Ohio]) 1852-1853, 1852-03-19
A Fair Specimen Of the Logic ofths
Opposition.

We AeNp SOAopteu some OF the most ifn-
portant extracts from the press on the un-
constitutiOnality and injustice Of the Maine
Liquor Law. They are worthy Of notice
just now:
Chief Justice Taney never hazarded
his judgment in declaring constitutional
he law now in operation IN Maine. The |
constitution provides that the rights Of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers and effects against unreasonable 4
searches and seizures shall not be violated, |
and no warrants shall issue but those sup
ported by oath or affirmation &c.
"The Maine Law provides no such oath
or affirmation. Again
"'The constitution stipulates that pri-
vate property shall not be taken without
just compensation and also, that crimi-
nal shall not be deprived Of life, liberty or
property without due process Of law
" But the Maine Law is, that no action
shall be maintained for intoxicating liquors,
or for liquors sold in any state, or for
the recOveTyor possession Of intoxicating
liquors, or The palue thereof These palma
be overlooked Again
- The constitution says, in all criminal
prosecutions (the Maine Law makes the
selling of liquors a crime,) the accused !
shall have a speedy trial by an impartial
jury
" The Maine Law does not secure an i'm
partial jury trial, or any jury trial, except in
appealed cases. The seller is first tried by
Justice, or Judge, and on his decision
the liberty and property of the seller de-
pends. This infringes the constitution, but
the law goes further, and excludes from the
jury all the traders in liquor. How can
Jury beimpartial when made up Of one sided
men Again
"'The constitution says that excessive
bail shall not be required, nor excessive
fines imposed, nor shall unusual punish
ments be inflicted
The Maine Law makes the agent or the
seller equally culpable with the employer
no matter under what circumstances he may
act; he has no appeal, nor any redress. He
is met at every step by fines and imprison
ment-denied an impartial jury-and not
one in thousand could get the required
bail and securities. In effect, this law sends
him to Jail for an act Of which he may be as
innocent as the ourtwhich imprisons him" ="
As these are acknowledged to be the
"most important extracts from the press
on the unconstitutionality and injustice of
the Maine Law" and as the editor of the
Enquirer says "they are worthy of notice
just now" we shall proceed as briefly as
possible to notice them.
"Chief Justice Taney never hazarded
his judgment in declaring constitutional
the law now in operation in the State Of
Maine" True, the constitutiOnality of the
law of Maine has never been questioned
before his Honor-but the writer knows, or
ought to know, that every principle involved
in this law was brought in question in the
great Massachusetts case, and that the
whole Supreme Court decided clearly and
unequivocally in favor of its constitution.
ality. But the writer thinks not, and goes
on to say that &C. the Constitution provides
that the rights of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses and personal effectl
shall not be violated, and no warrants shal
issue but those supported by oath or afir
4 nation, DC. All this is very we'll. We ac.
knowledge the full authority and force Of
/, this provision, and venerate the wisdom
that conceived it. But the editor of the
Enquirer says, "the Maine law provides
" no such oath or affirmation" This is a
, positive falsehood. The Maine law not
e emily provides that warrant shall not be
+ issued except it is supported by an oath, but
goes so far in guarding the constitutional
:. provision as to say that the oaths of three
UOters shall be required before a warrant
shall issue. We venture the assertion that
. there is not another law of any State in the
: Union, or of Congress, on the subject Of
search warrants, so well and so fully guarded
as this Maine law. ANY mans house may
be searched for stolen goods upon the oath
e of any individual, no matter whether a
}. legal voter or nOt-but according to the
, Maine law no dwelling house can be
=, searched, and the liquor seized, unless, in
J., addition to the usual oath of three uoters
e there be an affidavit to some act of sale.
Again -" The Constitution stipulates
that private property shall not be taken
without just compensation" How is it,
then, that the plate of the cOunterfeiter, and
the implements and tables of the gambler
are seized and confscated, and no compen-
sation made for them? How is it that the
soap and candle factory, or tannery, or
slaughter house, may be demolished by the
strong arm of the law, and no compensa-
tion made to the ownerH The Supreme
Court of the United States has answered
these questions NO man has right to
introduce into community any thing which
will impair the health, corrupt the morals
, or endanger the peace of society" If aper.
son, in violation Of the Constitution and
laws of the land, dare introduce that (Which
will impair the health, corrupt the morals
or endanger the peace of society" he car
not, under this clause of the Constitution
demand a recompense in money for tb,
= implements with which he commits tn
mischief. The dairyman's butter is seizet
n and confscated, and no compensation ren
1t dered therefor, if his pounds are a hal
If ounce less than standard weight. No mat
y y ter how innocent he may have been, be
3 cause he is committing a technical fraut
c upon the purchaser in the market, he lose
!; the whoIe-even when the article is of in
trinsic value. How much stronger is tn,
= case when the thing called property is o
no intrinsic value, as intoxicating drinks