The Ohio organ, of the temperance reform. (Cincinnati, [Ohio]) 1853-1854, 1853-09-16
4 the Maine Law Constitutional !

alitv of the Maine Law, in Ohio. The
friends of the liquor traffic say it is not,
and the friends of temperance say it Is.
Which is rightH The following article,
which we find communicated to the Gin
cinnati Commercial, in reply to an article
in the EsqIrer, we think win satisfy any
rational mind that the friends Of temper
ance take the right view Of the question.
We ask for it an attentive perusal. T ere
are many men who desire to favor the
Maine Law, but who think it is unconstitu-
tional. We especially request all such to
weigh we'll the arguments here advanced.
and we know that they will be with US.
This Is an important question, and we in
sert the article to the exclusion of much
other interesting matter.
Is Law Prohibiting the Traffic of
Intoxicating Liquors COmstitu.
tiOnal!
PUBs. CoM.--As the question Of legal interference
with the liquor traffic is agitating the public
to hitherto unprecedented extent and the Enquirer
in its leader Of the 10Th instant has attempted to
prove that the constitution itself has deprived the
Legislature Of the power to interfere with its SALE and
confined its action to the evils resulting from such
sale, hope you will allow me, through your columns,
to attempt argument, to my mind satisfactory in
favor Of the proposition that It Is strictly within the
spirit and letter Of the constitution Of Ohio, that the
Legislature should if they and the people deem it ex
pedent, utterly and entirely prohibit the manufacture
or sale Of intoxicating liquors as beverage.
As in the course OF this article l shall have occasion
to quote somewhat freely from the proceedings and
debates Of the Constitutional Convention Of 1850,
am fearful Of trespassing upon your patience, If not
that OF your readers but considering the Importance
OF correct understanding Of this question, and the
fact that let the result far as Legislative action is
concerned be what it may, the effect Of the present
agitation Of the public mind will undoubtedly result
in much moral good. / am led to hope, that you will
permit me to occupy 80 much Of your valuable journal
will suffice for full consideration and examination
in relation to constitutional power.
In examining this subject, shall disembarrass it
OF all questions arising upon the Maine Law, as it Is
called, or any other special enactment and, by con-
fnng myself to the simple question Of constitutional
pOtOer to iRtere Nth the rGc, leave the particular
Of that interference to be decided by the peo
pie and their legislative servants.
The Enquirer, in common will all who deny the
right Of legislation the traffic ITSELF bases its argu
ment upon the peculiar phraseoogy Of the constitu
tona provision in relation to the matter and claims
that the words, but the General Assembly may by
law provide against evils resulting thereform, taken
in connection with the prohibition against granting
licenses, contained in the frst part Of the section
limits and confines the legislature in its operations "a
the suilS Of the traffic. and takes away all control over
the thing which produces those evils to wit, the
traffic tSef-Or, in other words Of the Enquirer,
"The constitution does not propose to interfere
with the cause, only the efiect-the result" " Now
let apply the strictness Of language, used by the
EHQEirsr, to the first part Of this provision, and
what would be the result "No license to traffic in
Intoxicating liquors shall hereafter be granted in this
State" Now, Webster defines license" to be "leaVe
permission, authority or liberty to do or forbear q
particular act" and, thus defined, this clause Of it.
self amounts to positive and entire prohibition Of
the traffic itself; thus, no leave" emo permission,
authority" NO liberty" shall hereafter be granted
to traffic in Intoxicating liquors in this State; and
this, the EHQHtTer says, means that hereafter every
Psr1iSSiOa," authority" and liberty" to do this
thing, unrestrained BY any law, and above and in
spite Of both legislature and people. Does any senSi.
bic man believe in such abSurdity7
Hyou may not interfere with the traffic, what be-
comes Of your laws prohibiting the sale Of liquor on
SundayG-thGt Furnishing the sale to minors insane
persOnsthey are both legislative acts, directed not
against the eeet the results but the traffic itself
t saLs"-and if these are right, and the Legislature
have the power to say you shall not sell on ozs day Of
the week. or particular psrS class Of persons
where is the provision that requires you to stop here,
and not prevent the sale the other six days Of the
week, or to any and all other persons? II there is
any power over the traffic itself, to any eItsHt where
Is the line Of demarcation, and who shall say when
that line is reached?
The trGth is, the constitutional provisions makes
no change in the power Of the Legislature over this
business, except that it prohibits the granting Of
permission particular persons to engage in it to the
exclusion Of Others leaving the legislature the same
right to sustain abolish it if found to be detrimental
to the interests peace Of the community which it
possesses over every other trade business or
patton.
Ii the evils resulting" from the liquor traffic are
30 great that nothing short Of utter and entire pro-
hibiti0n will "proVde against" them, then It is
strictly and clearly within the Legislative power Ia
apply the remedy-if the effect cannot be prevented
without destroying the "cause," the cause must
go.
But to set this question entirely clear let Us
inc the debates and acts Of the convention, and
what was the intention and opinions Of those who
proposed and those who opposed the provisions on
this very subject. This mode is not now in the con
strucon Of either constitutions or laws the intention
Of the enactng power is daily referred TO by high
est Courts in the construction Of words Of doubtful
imporso that intention is gathered from their acts
and speeches.
On the Slst Of January, 1851, this cluse being un.
der discussion in the convention (see debates page
446) Mr.. Sawyer moved to amend by striking out al
after the word State" and inserting, in leu the
following NOR shall the General Assembly ever pro.
hbit such traffic.; this would have made the section
read thus: "No license to traffic in intoxicating
liquors shall hereafter be granted in this State MOI
shall the General Assembly ever prohibit such traffic
Here then was the direct question. In a vote on