Gallipolis journal. [volume] (Gallipolis, Ohio) 1837-1919, 1853-09-08

the people. The Maine law violates {
natural right which is not granted away
by the constitution.
Having finished the examination o
the constitutional question, he referred
to the operation of the law in Maine
1t did not work well there. He had let
ters and documents to substantiate this
In Portland, it is true, the trade ha:
been driven from respectable houses tC
the hands of bad men, who sell bad
article at high prices from their bach
doors. In Maine, only FIVE persons and
$4,000 were employed in making Ii
/. quor. In Ohio, millions of capital are
employed, and thousands are engaged in
the business. Thousands are deceived
by not knowing the features of the Maine
law, and if they knew its features they
would oppose it as strenuously as he did.
Here his time expired.
DR.. Jewett then took the stand and
replied. He was afraid his opponent
had raised the expectation of the people
too high in regard to his ability. He
should follow the argument so far as
time would allow. He then took up the
argument on the bill of rights. If for
eigner were talking with an Obioan
about the rights we have secured by the
revolution, the man would take him
round the corner and show him several
doggeries. These are the liberties that
we have acquired. The foreigner would
be apt to say-"Why, we, of foreign ma
tons have this right at home, and it was
not necessary to have revolution to Sc
cure the right to make and drink rum"
Our forefathers struggled for something
more than the right to make and drink
liquors.
He then examined the question of nat
ural right He wanted that Defined
In state of nature, man has the same
right as tiger. He may make war or
peace at pleasure. But, by coming into
society, we must relinquish some of our
natural rights. A man has a natural
right to drive his horse in the middle of
the streets, and to drive as fast as he
has mind to. But we make laws every
day to restrict these rights. We say
how fast man may drive in our streets.
Nobody thinks these things are uncon-
stitutional. He illustrated the idea by
the case of man in New Jersey, who
was not permitted to sell sweet corn in
New York in cholera times. He show
ed that the natural right to eat and drink
what he saw fit was violated in that case,
and nobody thinks it unconstitutional
What became of the natural right in
this case, and in all cases of the kind?
1t was clearly subseryient to the best in
terests of society, and we had always
acted on this theory.
Men are Incorporate in eating, drink
ing, wearing clothes, &C., but nobody
else is injured by it. This is the dis
tinction. But, in the use of liquor, the
injury is not confined to the drinker.-
Society is injured, and society has a
right to protect itself from this injury
He illustrated the idea by instances.
He examined the constitutionality of
the Maine law. He quoted from de-
cision of Chief Justice Taney, in the
Supreme Court of the United States,
upon this subject, who said that if any
State saw fit to prohibit its sale, &c,
they clearly had right to do SO. JUS
tice Mclean said State may prohibit
the sale of liquors ifit wishes. Justices
Catron and Daniels conceded in this
opinion. Justice Grier had decided in
the same way. He read these decisions
and commented upon them. Police laws
for the prevention of crime must have
free operation, according to the exigency
of the case, and State laws for this pur-
pose are constitutional.
He examined the impartial jury argu-
ment. 1t was an unfortunate allusion.
Would it be impartial to have three or
four horse-thieves on a jury to try a
horse-thief? The law only provided
that rumsellers are not proper, because
they are guilty of the offence, and they
are not, therefore, impartial. The gen
tleman had not stated the law fairly
1t did not provide that the jury should
be of Notwithstanding of the sort.
He referred to the English case, quo
ted by his opponent. What if John Bull
had failed? Was that any reason why
we should fail? We have done many
things that England never thought of.
He referred to McCormick's reaping
machine. They thought that because
they had failed, we must fail; but they
found themselves mistaken, and they
manfully admitted their mistake. The
English case was governmental meas
ure, without consultation with the peo-
pie. There was no discussion, no prep
aration, no submission of it to them
But we of this country think for our
selves, and if we see fit to make such
law, it is the people that do it. Let the
people vote upon it-let the people of
Ohio vote upon this abstract question,
and there would be thunder that would
startle the nation.
Property may be destroyed without
paying for it. We do so every day
We take the property of the counter
feiter and gambler, and seller of OBJ
scene books, and nobody doubts the
constitutional right. Nobody questions
the right to take and destroy property
that is illegally used.
He used up the cider argument by an
illustration. Suppose.a man should kill
an OK. If he lets it lay a few days in the