The organ of the temperance reform. (Cincinnati, O. [Ohio]) 1852-1853, 1852-01-14

nave bue SuchitS9 VI ASAA
svsiI themselves Of every possible
means to defeat the operation Of
law, or escape its wholesome provi-
sions. Disregard Of law, human and
divine, has always been one Of the
prominent and characteristic features
Of the liquor traffic. We have recently
learned that the Act of the Territorial
Legislature of Minnesota against the
traffic, had been declared by the pro-
per court unconstitutional. The his
tory of the Temperance movement in
Minnesota is interesting The friends
of the Maine Measure in the Territory,
in large numbers pet ..,oned tn ir Legis-
lature for the enactment of the law.
The friends Of rum and ruin, said it
would not do to go so far in advance
of popular sentiment; hepeople we're
not prepared for such strong legisla-
ton. Their opponents said, we are
confident the majority desire the law,
and we are willing tn submit The Pro
position for their decision. After
good deal of shulTling and dodging,
the rum party were induced, [ because
they could not prevent it, to 1T the
law pass, subject to the approval ofthe
electors on a given day. Both parties
took the field; Temperance men re-
lying upon the justice of their cause,
and the intelligence of the people, did
all they could to secure a victory.
The liquor party, with bottles in hand,
appealed to the lowest passions, lied
about the law, and put forth every ef-
fort to defeat their antagonists.
The result was a decisive majority
in favor of the law, and it went into
operation. But the rummies cared
nothing for the will of the majority,
and continued to pursue their outlawed
and condemned traffic prosecutions
were instituted, lawyers were employ
ed on either side, and the courts were
invoked on the one side to thwart the
will of the people, and on the other to
enforce it.
y A case was carried up before the
Chief Justice of the Territory, Hon
, H. Z. Hayner, (not Haynau,) } and altc
, full argument, he declares the lay
unconstitutional. And why!
4 !. THAT tho legislative po1Vo1' boin
4 tested BY the Organic Act in the leg
isIative assembly and Governor, the
had no right or authority to delegat
it to any body or pcrsons-not even
= the people Of the Territory.
2. That in the enactment in ques
S ton, the legislature in effect attempte
to transfer this power to the people.
3. That in so doing they acted be
! yond their authority, and conferre
no power upon the people, and conse
quently their acts were void.
a 4. That the people of the Territor.
+ could not, in their eminent dominion
reserve and exercise the power, mas
mnch as the territories belong to tn
people of the whole Union, and undc
the Constitution of the y. S., the u
innate sovereignty is granted to Cor
f gress. Ifit could be reserved it wouI
@ have to be done by Congress, and NJ
by the people of the Territory, VII
therefore derived no right from tn
source to pass this enactment, an
8, therefore it never became a law, ar
1t cannot be enforced as such.
y Comment from us is unnecessal
BIT upon this strange decision. Yet Y
L. cannot refrain from a remark or tw
in The gist of the whole matter is in Il
IN first point. "That the Legislative pow
~ is vested solely in the Legislative A
n sembly and Governor, and that tn
- had no right to delegate it-cvcn
Gle the people Of the Territory" II
ce asserts what is not true name
that the law was passed by the peep
:, The Legislative Assembly passed
" law, and the Governor signed it.
I'S was, however, to be enforced Oh
IN upon the condition that the electors
he the Territory approved of its pro
IL sions.
lg' The court says the acts of the p
'rk pie in the premises were void. If
then, where the law was passed by
ne Assembly, and signed by the Gov
IT. nor, It became a law without referee
to the subsequent vote of the sOUereiJ
IRE for or against. We should thi
.th if shame could possess a friend of
liquor traffic, it would mantle
,nr cheek as he reads such opinions fir
ri. those in authority. After being dri'