Eastern times. [volume] (Bath, Me.) 1846-1857, 1852-07-22

that in the enactment of the "liquor law" the
dearest rights CT the people had been assailed,
and that the liberties of the citizen and the hon
or of the State could in no way be vindicated
but by the inuolaton of Governor Hubbard.
Bat why is Gov. Hubbard Of all others 10 be
made the victim. Because, forsoolh, that by
signing that odious ''liquor laws" he has
''tra,ap'ed upon the liberties 81 The people"
Well, tins Is indeed u serious charge md
if well founded, there can he no question
that the offence ought 10 bevlsited with con
Ggn punishment. Bat let Us inquire Il little
into The matter; and let not gentlemen be
alarmed; | am not going 10 discuss the naer-
It's of The "liqnor aw''-of that have noti-
ing TO say To-day. Let the character and
tendency of the law be what they may, ask
you, gent lenien, who is responsible Tor its
enactment? Who were the real authors of
the law now so poiuIedly condemned? Did
not the people themselves demand it, and that
too with unanImity and an emphasis which
has rarely been equalled? Aud, when on a
former occasion, similar act was vetoed by
Gov. Dana, and an appeal thus virtually taken
from the Legislature to the people, what was
the result? Dad The people acquiesce No
so far from hat they demanded anew, in
thunder tones not 10 be resisted, the passage
Of this very law. ~ view of the tremendous
evils growing out of the lndlscrminate sale
Of liquors, an opinion prevailed very gener-
ally, indeed it seemed TO lie almost universal
that a resort to stringent measures had be-
come indispensable. Ii there ever was case
in which the Legislature. in the enactment
of law, acted in obedience TO public senti-
ment, such was the fact in the case we are
discussing; and pray you, gentlemen, is it
not right that public sentiment should be felt
and responded to in our halls o9 legislation?
Are we in earnest when we contend that
"here the people gouern" people make the
lalos''-or is il only gum.g game, intended 10
deceive and mislead? Was it not right then
entirely in accordance with the spirit and
principles of our free instiiutons-that, in
obedience to repeated uneguivocal express
ions of public sentiment, aud that too IN re-
latlon TO a matter we'll considered and thor
oughly canv assed-was it not right, | ask,
for the Legislature, under such circumstances
to enact the law in questions? And if right
for them TO pass it, how could it be wrong
for the Governor to sign il?
For the public opinion which demanded
the law, and the action of the Legislature in
enacting ii, he was in no degree responsible.
Without any procurement of his own, he
was placed in position in which he. must
either veto the bill or sign it. The first he
could not do without a plain and palpable
violation of the principle that the majority
should rule. And, who, then, is lie that COM
plains of him for signing it?
Believing, as he did, that the law properly
construed violated no provision or principle
of the constitution, there was really no al
tentative but for him TO sign it. And trust
in COP that The time has not yet arrived
when The people Of Maine are prepared 10
osracise public servant for a manly dis
charge of a public duty. "Tell it moi in
Gath, publish it not in the streets Of Aske-
lon," that 10 the "Pine Tree State," man
may not approve law intended to promote
a moral reform, and held in special favor
through the country, without committing po-
li;icai suicide