The Ohio organ, of the temperance reform. (Cincinnati, [Ohio]) 1853-1854, 1853-03-11

Judge Story, s'that the control OF the
the internal trade, is reserved to the
States"
In the year 1e45, three cases were
brought before the Supreme Court of
the United States, namely: one from
MASSACHUSETTS, forbidding the sale of
intoxicating liquors, in less quantities
than 2S gallons; one from New Hamp-.
shire, forbidding the sale in pny quanti-
ty, and a Similar one in Rhode Island.
In deciding these three cases, the SUI
preme Court incidentally decided the
right Of a State to prohibit the traffic,
or to seize and destroy liquors when
ever the public good should require it.
Chief Justice Taney says: f8 Eag
"Every State may regulate its own IN
ternal traffic, according to its own judg-
ment, and upon its own views Of the inter
est and well-being of its citizens. If any
State deems the retail and internal traffic
in ardent spirits, injurious to its citizens,
and calculated to produce idleness, vice
and debauchery. see nothing in the Con-
stitution of the United States tosprevent it
from regulating and restraining the traffic,
or from prohibiting It altogether, if it thinks
proper" 45.N = h3 aN'N1at .o-h l1s'A
In this humane and rational result,
all the associate Judges coincided.
Judge Catron said:
II admit as inevitable, that If the State
has the power Of restraint, by license to
any extent, it has the discretionary power
to Judge of its limits, and may 90 TO the
length Of prohibiting sales altogether if such
be her policy"
\ Another Of the Judges said: IS ss,
\ 1t is not necessary to array the appalling
statistics of misery. papperism and crime,
/ which have their origin in the use and
abuse of ardent spirits. The police power
| which IS exclusively vested ihthe States, isl
alone competent to the correction Of these
| great evils; and all measures Of restraint or
| prohibition, necessary to effect the purpose
are within the scope Of that authority. ALI
| laws for the restraint or prohibition, neces-
sary to effect that purpose are within the
scope of that authority. All laws for the
restraint or punishment. Of crime, or the
| preservation of the public peace, health or
morals, are, from their very nature, 0f pfi-
mary Importance, and lie al Che foundation
! Of social existence They are for the pro-
/ Iltection of life aud liberty end necessarily
H compel TIL Jaw 0n subjects Of secondary
II Importance, which tel Iates only to property,
conveniences or luxury to feceda when they
come in contact or collision.
In the same case, Judge McLane
said: SIS ssa aaiao1g ,4lfaiW
Merchandise from part where d con-
tagiOus disease prevails, beiAg liable to
communicate the disease, may be excluded,
and in certain cases may be thrown into the
sea. ! his comes IN direct conflict with the
regulations of commerce, and yet essential
to preservation, and exists necessarily in
every organized community. It is indeed
the law Of nature; and is possessed by man
in his individual capacity"
Again Judge Grier said
Quarantine laws, which protect public
health, compel mere commerce regulations
to submit to their control, They restrain
the liberty OF the passengers; they. operate
} on the ship, which is the instrument of
commerce, and its officers and crew, the
agents of navigation. They seize the in
tested cargo, and cast it overheard ALI
these things are done, not from the power
; which the Stale assumes to regulate COM
f merce, or interfere with the regulations of
6 Congress, but because the police laws for
the prevention of crime, and the protection
Of the public welfare, must, of necessity.
have full and free operation, according to
the exigencY which requires their interfer-
, ence, II loss of revenue should occur to
,, the United States from diminished con
sumption of ardent spirits, she would be
the gamer athousand fold, in the wealth
and happiness of her people,. ..aa
: Thus the Supreme Court Of the
: United States has virtually settled the
: constitutionality of the law now un-
t der consideration Indeed. if society
has conceded right to enact laws for
her oWndprotection and safety. it is
impossible to see how the Supreme
Court could have come to any other
e conclusion. % We have, 1 the n, what
: EWe deem the ohiohest human. antko.;tv