The organ of the temperance reform. (Cincinnati, O. [Ohio]) 1852-1853, 1852-12-17
HARrFoRp, Dec. IL 1872

.
HARTFORD, Dec. IL, 1852.
, We were somewhat surprised whel
it was announced by telegraph in tn
Queen City that the Supreme Cour
; of New Hampshire had decided tn
Maine Law unconstitutional, and il
an editorial expressed our anxiety t
see the decision in full. This plea
sure has been denied us until thi
evening. " were puzzled to know
how the subject was brought to III,
cognizance of the Court of that State
as there was no law of the kind OF
the statute book. 1t seems that n bill
was reported in the Senate of New
Hampshire, and at the same time a
resolution was presented and passed,
asking the opinion of the Judges OF
the Supreme Court as to the constitu-
tionality of the proposed bill. The
Court appreciated the novelty of their
position, and say that in the abserce
OF the arguments they can only give
their " imPressioas," and If the bin
sAoald become a lar, Mey acould not feel
men'sfl"es 6o~''d by tits opinion, if
called upon to give it a construction.
In the lengthy dissertation of its
merits, they do not anywhere express
doubt as to the right of a State
Legislature to prohibit the LIQUOR
manufacture and traffic. The four
great features of the Maine Law which
give it its vital power are not touched
even by these Impressions of a "New
Hampshire Court. Tile rightto search
for liquors pih a warraat--tIe riqAtto
Ss'zs them rhen .tound, the rigM 10 de-
stroy hem chen condemned, the righ to
make the liquor a aoitaess AGAINST tIe
o~ncr are not denied. Let the LIQUOR
sympathisers and friends in Ohio. in
the Legislature and out of it. "put
this in their pipe and smoke it." The
whole of these " "impressions - relate
70 the details of the JiH, such for in
stance as giving unwarrantable power
o the Justices Of the peace, denying
he right of trial by jury, &C., &c. :.
The Court evidently lean very
strongly in favor of liquor, and play
he demagogue with good grace. Their
impressions" are full of special
and some of their reasoning
would better become a contemplate
'ettyiogger than a supreme judicial
tribunal. We cannot in a letter enter
lpon an analysis of this remarkable
opinion, given under such remarkable
circumstances, but we viii quote the
trongest point made in this precious
pecimen of judicious twaddle, and
rive some comments.
4. The 18th section of this act provides
hat /" no action Of any kind shall be had
r maintained in any court of this State ,
Or the recovery or possession of intoxica.
ing or spirituous liquors, or the value
hereof 1t seems impossible to reconcile [
MS provision with the 18th article in the
ill Of Rights, above referred to. Such
quors are property. The bill itself treats
lem as property. License is TO be given
} sell them for certain purposes. The
ghts OF towns and mechanics to such as Z
re kept in conformity to the bill are pro-
cted. Legislation cannot change the ma.
ire of things. That which was property Z
the I'd section OF the bill, and Of which
may be predicaied as well as Of
~ other thing, cannot by force of few I
Irases lose its particular character In the
tn section, aud we think that persons in.
red in their property of this kind, are en-
led to remedy by recourse to the laws.
at Is, by an action. AZ. a
Itlseems the point is that the law z
CARDS liquors as property in one po. q
ion, and not as property in others. Z Z
es, and this principle has been acted ! !
'on from time immemorial, and is +,
ind on every statute book in The "