New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-03-18
BOSTON.



BosroN. Tuesday. March Is, Is51
so,ne Of your readers may be interested 70
know how the Maine Law stands 10 this Ss-te. The
leess,urs which Is sad 20 have psssel from the hsnis
ofhe Coalition 10 those OF the Whgs by rum ard re-
real vc:es seems in haste after al 70 repeal the law
having very positively refused Mr. wi-gn leave 70 in
troduce bin for that purpose Bat the Joint Commit
tee Of fourteen from the Hoase and eight from the
senste, 70 whom referred the 10000 petitioners
for repeal and the 1900 rernonsrau,s sgaiuE. the
same, has yet to report To-day that COMMITTEE e. is
here customary IN such cases. gave the petitioners
public hearing and on Thursdsyit is understood the
remonstrsns viii have the same privilege This hear
ing held in the Han of the House Of Representa-
tives which completely filed the audience CON-
rrising both sexes, but chiefly males. The law was
vigorously attacked by Mr. Brewer of Cambridge him.
self member Of the Committee, speaking 70 the Com
mittee tn hs character Of private citizen and Rec Jo
seph C. Lovejoy Of Cambridge. Mr. Brewers was q
carefully written speech, In which he discaimsd soy
desire to have Intoxicating drinks any abundant
or easily sttanable bat dwelt especially on the
stu,oDalty Of the law in refusing TO protect prop
erty that which the Constitution of the United States
has decided to be property BY authorisins Congress to
levy duties upon it, To prohibit the article would be
Union He was also jealous for the cause of liberty
which IL endangered by this law, law which he final
" pronounced worthy of Russia or Austria Mr..
Brewer, however brewed nothing new.
1t was otherwise with Mr. Lovejoy who took, as they
sometimes say broad ground and presented several
arguments that are not only novel, but much po
tent han he probably supposed. The very first block
that he threw before the wheels of the arfamed Law
pibIe-tbo xwhole ph1a ne Law no said
ought to be repealed because it is directly contrary
the Word Of God. His own faith to this effect
wayeripg and undisturbed by doubt dc would prove
his assertion both from the Old Testament and the New
In the former the formula of blessing was "May your
corn and your wine and your oil increase" and in the
latter, Christ furnished about 100 gallons Of wine
genuine alcoholic wine for festive occasion This He
could not do here In Massachusetts, without being prose
cuted under the "Maine Law" Hence that law and
the author Of Christianity at The Bible pro-
nounced wine blessing, and the Maine Law pro-
nounced il curse; If one right the other
wrong. lie might have added, though he did not that
modern science has ale pronounced alcohol bever
age a curse in Whatever shape imbibed. Perhaps he
thought II would be most convenient for the Bible to
encounter the Maine Law first and Physiology after.
ward Mr.. Lovejoy did not seem at all aware that his
Bible argument againstthe law equally good against
Total Abstinence for that that whoever begins
to ibibe the alcoholic stimulus is led by impercepbe
graduation to inebriaon and that therefore the crime of
drunkenness Is really chargeabe TO the fret glass max
ing wine no blessing ALL TO be INDUCED In
without certain degree Of criminaty. To make the
Scriptures good against the Maine Law, Mr.. Lovejoy
must make them sanction and sanctify moderate drink
ing as a duty which men and women owe 10 them.
selves Now the Scriptures themselves trea, drunken.
as crime and pronounce zoe upon the drunk
ard and physiology steps In aud demonstrates that in
majority Of the crime and the just certain
ly end unavoidsbly follow the moderate drinking NJ
the shadow follows the substance. But Mr. Loyejoy
did not task himself to clear up these difficulties II
enough for his purpose that what inspired men
tolerated we must allow else overthrow Inspiration
This Scripture argument, however, the whole
strength Of Mr. Lovejoys case. The rest was the Or
binary rhetoric which steers clear of facts and
philosophy and the point be proved 1t was
law he said, Of false pretenses for it professed 10 be
aaw for the suppression of tipping shops or concern
ing the manufacture and sale of liquors, whereas IL
was really law to enforce Total Abstinence It had
been called law to diminish taxation but those who
were most affected by taxation to w.t. those who paid
the largest taxes y had not asked for the law Il was
sad to be law for the suppression of crime but police
officers, and sherifs and jzers who have most 10 do
with crime had not asked for it y II was enacted at
the instance Of Total Abstinence men acting on politics
through the clergy, aud thus foreboded union of
Church and State the worst tyranny that could bef
country.
But Mr. Lovejoy's grand argument was that the law
csnno, be enforced. In stating this by lapse of the
tongue, he happened to say 1t be repealed
which brought from the audience lively round of APP
pause showing very clearly that the friends of the
traffic were considerable part of it. They, poor
ellows choose to be somewhere else when their bust
mess is discussed. They had rather have its claims
attended to privately. Even the ingenious argument
of ongheaded parson gives no pleasure TO them,
for they fnoe their business 10 snesking in the
middle of the nineteenth century. To prove that the
law be enforced the Rev. gentleman read Port
land court calendars to show that convictions st take
place in city, for rumseng and for drunkenness
And to prove that ii will certainly be repealed in two
years, he read from Hsnsards Parliamentary History
in regard to a law which was passed by the British
Parliament in 1884, laying prohbitory duty gin.
which did not check the consumption Of gin and was
repealed in two years.
Such fairly the substance of elaborate argument.
f perhaps the sbest champion against the Maine Law
who has appeared among U.S. What he did not say Is
far more significant than what he did say lie did not
say that the statistics which show the dimauton Of
paupersm and crime wherever the Maine Law has
been imperfectly enforced is,sc He did not
slude to them though he very well knew that was
the strength Of such statistics that the law was
passed in State and continues to be sustained he
chose rather 20 dwell on the wsntoa waste Of properly
and violation OF right which he characterized as aka
to sSrafisnsn and French socialism 4 was unjust
doing evil thar good might come, &c.
Did il ever occur to such mOon.S,r,ck remnants Of
the tygone 10 AK what right have 70 iavest CAPT
tai IL business which Cannot possibly osrih without
en,aing their innocent fellow .zons pecunary
loss greater than their prohs and upon the other par.
tee to their traffic and their dependents oss which
money csnnOt EXPRESS Before these capitalists com
plain that their rum purchasers are wsntony knocked
on the head, let them come forward. ike honorable