Gallipolis journal. [volume] (Gallipolis, Ohio) 1837-1919, 1853-08-11

force it at once, in such a place as Gin
einnati, for it is difficult to enforce any
law against immortality and crime; but
it could be enforced Immediately in
nine-tentbs of the counties in Ohio, and
the glorious results obtained there
would ultimately and speedily bring
the whole power of the State to bear
against the evil in the liquor-stricken
cities.
The ease and certainty with which
the law can be enforced, are the rea-
sons why it is so obnoxious to the
makers and venders of intoxicating
poisons, and ought to be sufficient to
induce every friend of virtue and de-
cency to exert himself to procure It's
speedy passage and enforcement. The
.'civil war" which this law has occa-
stoned has been oery civil war, more
bad liquor than blood has thus far been
spilled.
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
1t is urged, with apparent sincerity,
that law of entire prohibition will con-
fiict with that clause of the Constitution
of the United States, which gives to
Congress the power to regulate COM
merce with foreign nations and among
the several States" The proposed act,
it is said, indirectly prohibits by seizing
an article of commerce. This is no
longer debatable question. The
mighty intellect of Webster, in an
elaborate argument, presented this sub
ject before the Supreme Court of the
United States in, behalf of the liquor
sellers of Boston. That Court, how
ever, concurred in the opinion that the
entire prohibition of the internal traffic
in liquor was within the legitimate
power of State. Congress may regu-
late commerce, but it cannot guarantee
market for its articles; when the duty
has been paid and the goods have
passed the custom house, the laws and
police regulations of State attach to
them. But again: the corporate au-
thorities of New York or Boston have a
right to examine every vessel that
proposes to enter her port. If an in
fective cargo is found on board, that is
likely to endanger the health or life of
citizens, the articles of commerce may
be thrown overheard and the vessel
itself scuttled and sunk The law of
self-defense is older and more authorita-
tive than any law Of Congress. The
objector again urges that the proposed
law conflicts with this article of the ma
tional Constitution; namely, "The fight
of the people to be secure in their per-
sons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures shall
not be violated; and no warrants shall
issue, but upon probable cause sup
ported by oath or affirmation, and par
ticularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to
be seized"
This clause does not forbid searches
and seizures in every case, but only
such as are unreasonable" The only
point to be settled, is it unreasonable"
to search for and seize liquors kept for
illegal sale? 1t is reasonable to search
a vessel-seize and destroy its cargo, if
the health of city requires it. 1t is
reasonble to search for and seize gun
powder, kept for sale in city, because
human life is endangered; it is reasona-
bic to search for and seize obscene
books and pictures, because the public
morals are in jeopardy; is it reasona-
bic to search for and seize the plates
and dies of the counterfeiter, because
they may be the means of defrauding
the citizen 1t is unreasonable"
then, to search for and seize that which
invariably and universally results in
loss of health, life, property and NOR
ais?
A law is not asked, that will author
ize warrant without probable cause"
and supported by oath or affirmation
describing the place to be searched and
the thing to be seized"
OF what force, then, are these objec-
tons?
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE.
1t is also asserted that the proposed
measure is in conflict with the State
Constitution, and particularly the no-li-
cense clause. 1t reads thus: mo Ii
cense to traffic in intoxicating liquors
shall hereafter be granted in this State;
but the General Assembly may by law
provide against evils resulting there
FROM" The intention of the trainers of
this clause of the Constitution, and the
understanding of the people who voted
for its insertion, were two-fold: 1st. To
take away the protection which Govern
ment had hitherto extended to the traf-
fic: 'No license to traffic in intoxicating
liquors shall hereafter be granted in
this State cd. To subject this traffic
to such restraints and penalties as may
be necessary for the public good: ''But
the General Assembly may by law pro-
vide against evils resulting therefrom. ''
No man of good common sense, would
place any other construction upon the
language than thatthe Legislature might
interpose its power to save society from
this vile and Infamous traffic. The
technical quibble is, that as the General
Assembly may provide against the evils
resulting from it, that it is a fair infer
ence that the traffic itself shall not be