The Ohio organ, of the temperance reform. (Cincinnati, [Ohio]) 1853-1854, 1853-12-02

- NNseA FNNN+NI AeW OaN NAAo WIS iAACNA
rect, for It's object was not to restrict
people in their expenditure, but to
protect society from vice and crime,
disease and death. Some asserted
that they would drink whether we had
a law against it or not. To such he
would say, as a certain old lady had
said to a man who had tried to fighten
her, by asserting that he was the
Devil, There was certain old lady
who was remarkable for hex courage,
and a man thought he would try and
frighten her, and test her bravery, He
disguised himself in d fantastic garb,g
placing upon his head d pair Of horns,
and meeting the old lady in the night,
exclaimed, ~ am the Devil Well.
said she, then you are poor creature,
that is all. What he would say to
those who were determined to drink
alcoholic liquors, IF they would drink,
they were poor creatures, that was all.
The operations of the Maine Law,
were like those Of any other law,
bearing against an overt act. Was it
an unjust law? Yes we were told, i
was an unconstitutional law-and it
was an Infringement upon human
rights. There we're many very elo-
quentspeeches made against the Maine
Law, on the ground that it was an in
fringement upon human rights. He
would ask, if there was law in the
United States that was not an infringe
ment upon what many claimed as
their rights I! There was no law that
did not infringe more or less upon the
supposed rights of some one. When
the cholera was raging in St. Louis, q
law was passed against the use Of fish
and fruit. This was considered an in
fringement upon the rights Of dealers
in these articles; but it was considered
necessary for the protection Of the pub
lie health, and consequently their
rights were disregarded as being less
important than those Of the community
at larga He supposed old George
the Ill, considered the American
Revolution was an interference with
his rights. And it did interfere
with his constitutional rights pretty
efectually. And when the revolutions
in Europe, that were now expected
should break out, we should probably
see Francis Joseph, and old Nicholas
fumbling for their Crowns, and Louis
Napoleon loudly asserting his right TO
tyranize over the people.
1t was said that we paid duties to
the United States government, upon
liquors, which we were not allowed to
sell, where this law was in force. This
was considered powerful argument
against the prohibitory law. Now if
they could find within the borders Of
this country, the Identical liquor that
was imported, in all its purity, he was
willing they should sell it. Laugh
ter. There liquors were like the
students knife. A certain student
anxious to display his philosophical
powers, told his teacher that if he had
a knife and break out the blade, and
then get new blade made for it, it
would still be the same knife, and then
if he should break the handle, and
get new oGe, it would continue 10 be
the same knife still. Well, said the
professor, if you should find the old
handle and old blade, what would that
be. daughter. At many Of the
liquor establishments in New York,
the imported liquors had been SO much
adulterated, that he thought it would
be difficult matter to prove that there
was a particle Of imported liquors left.
At a distilery in New Jersey, their
supply of ed,bugs with which they
favored their liquor, had given out,
and they had made a contract in
Philadelphia for reaches, to use in