The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1852-03-23

in which federal rights are contravened by this
section of State law A New York importer
may receive valuable cargo of wine from Eu-
rope, and, after selling it, may carry The pro-
ceeds to Maine, and there, under cover of this
moral mending law, may laugh at the efforts of
| his creditor TO collect the debt The constitu-
| tional limitation Of State power declaring that
| the obligation of contracts shall not be inn
| paired, is in this view of the case clearly VIC
lated oy the Maine Legislators, who seem will
| ing to open the door to endless roguery for the
sake of stopping the use of intoxicating drink
| The Federal Constitution further declares
that Sin all criminal prosecutions the accused
shall enjoy the right to speedy and public
trial by an impartial jury of the State and dis
| trict wherein the crime shall have been COM
| mitted" The Maine law, having made
| the selling of liquor crime. gives to a Judge
or magistrate summary power over the Glib
erty and property of the criminal" who
is deprived of his right of trial by jury ex
cept in cases of appeal. The right of ap
peal is SO environed by fines, penalties, and
all kinds of hindrances, that in majority
of instances it is practically denied to defend
ant. If, after all, he dares to claim trial by
jury, and appeals in order to obtain it, he fails
to secure impartiality, because the law which
makes the vendor ofliquor a criminal, also de
suspected of being connected with it, shall be ex-
Guided from the jury by which his case is finally
determined The wrong is twofold: firstly, to the
individual defendant, who is compelled to sub
nit to arbitrary regulations before he can enjoy
the privilege which the Constitution of the
country and the State declares to be inviolate ;
secondly, to large class Of citizens, who,
whatever their responsibility, are virtually out
lawed because they chance to be obnoxious to
the trainers and friends of a sumptuary law.
The constitutional stipulation that "exces-
sive bail shall not be required, nor excessive
fines imposed, nor shall cruel and unusual pun
ishments be inflicted, ;" is violated in similar
manner. The Maine law does impose excess
| i've fines; it subjects man to two months
imprisonment on er parte testimony; it exacts
excessive ball. and it sanctions the unusual
punishment" of filming or imprsoning the ser
want of seller of liquor as equally culpable
with the master There is uncomfortable harsh
ness in all this, if not absolute unconstitution-
| atty.
!. In support of the right of State altogether
to prohibit traffic in iquor, the advocates of the
Maine law refer to cases from Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, and New Hampshire, that have
already been decided by the Supreme Court of
the United States. But there are essential
differences between the laws under which
those cases were originally adjudicaied and
| that now In operation in Maine. The
Massachusetts and Rhode Island laws did
not prohibit the sale Of liquor, but simply
required license to sell in less than speci-
| fled quantities. The New Hampshire law
contained a general prohibition to license,
but the conviction which the point was de-
! cided by the Supreme Court related TO the
sale of barrel Of gin Of home manufacture
and therefore bore no resemblance TO the cases
that must arise under the Maine law. The
| former, however inexpedien,, was simply a
police regulation, under the entire control Of
| the State; the latter involves a conflict with the
exclusive power vested by the Constitution in
Congress, in relation to foreign commerce, and
exercised by Congress in the existing laws
regulating the importation of foreign wines and
! liquors.
If the Maine law prohibited the importation
OF liquors from foreign countries, or from other
States, it could not be held to be valid for
moment, because in collision with the absolute
| power Of Congress TO regulate commerce, whe-
ther as between States, or between this coun-
| try and other countries. Judge MCLEAN,
when the Massachusetts, and Rhode Island
cases were before the Supreme Court, observed:
alt is admitted that State law which shall
prohibit importations of foreign spirits, being
9 repugnant TO the commercial power in the
Federal Government, and contrary TO the act
8 of Congress on that subject, would be void"
| Chief Justice TANEY said: "lf the State law
9 comes in collision with the act of Congress,
: and prevents or obstructs the importation or
{ sale Of the articles by the importer, it
would be the duty of this court to declare
them void" Now, though the Maine
law has no direct prohibition against the
! importation Of foreign liquors, the operation
Of it will, indirectly and to a large oxtent,
produce the same result. To prohibit sales, or
! to impose such restrictions as shall render sales
all but impossible, is in effect to prohibit i'm
portation; and this is precisely what is done by
| the Maine law. Section eleven gives author
ity to enter on the premises where intoxicating
liquors are kept for sale, seize and convey the
same to a place Of safety, 10 summon the
owner. "and unless he can show, by positive
proof, that the liquor is of foreign production,
and imported under the laws Of the United
States, and contained in the same cask in
which it was imported, and in quantities not
less than the laws Of the United States pre-
scribe, it shall be declared forfeited and de-
stroyed, ard the owner pay fine of twenty
dollars" II is further declared, elf the
owner sets up claim that the liquor has
been regularly imported, and contained in the