Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1854-02-17
Hon. Rufus ChOate on the MainC
Liquor Law,

The question OF the constitutionalty Of the
Anti-Liquor Law Of Massachusetts, whose es-
sentlal features are similar to those of the
Maine Liquor Law, has recently been submit
ted to the full bench of the Supreme Court of
that State. The Attorney General, Hon. Ru-
fus Choate, conducted the argument on be.
halF of the State. This question has become
of such general interest that we make no ap-
ology for noticing ais leading points. Mr..
Choate considered it conclusively settled by
the decisions of the Supreme Court of the
United States, that it was perfectly competent
for the State Legislature to ordain as they
had done, that in regard TO domestic spirits
and in regard to al. spirits after they have
landed and after they have been broken into
packages smaller than the laws of U S. Gov
eminent allow to be sold, and have thus been
withdrawn from the guardianship of the gen.
eral Government, it shall be illegal to keep
them, or 70 deposit them with intent to sell
for the purpose Of drinking. or without H.
cense TO deposit them or keep them with in.
tent to sell at ALL Alter the general Govern
ment has collected its revenues on imported
liquors, and they have left the original packa-
ges ofimportation and after they have become
blended with and parcel OF that complex sub
Ject OF property, the circumstances of which
form the general object of the police and eg-
lslatlon OF The State, the State may then abso.
lutely prohib: their sale. That as penalty
for the violation of such statute the State
may inhict fine or DESTROY the liqnor. That
lis destruction is equivalent to forfeiture of
property and does not differ from fine. That
although as much property as houses. lands
or goods, it may, when il becomes means OF
or temptation 10 evil lose its character as prop
erty and become nuisance, just as the SNUG
gers ship, the counterfeiters tools, implements
OF gaining, shingles not of a size prescibed by
statute, lottery tickets. &c, all of which are
property till used contrary to law.
That its destruction by the State is no more
the taking of private property for public use
than the imposition of fine on the rioter OF
the taking ofthe murderer's life, or the out.
lawry Of the articles above named-and that
such laws are not unconstitutional, unless the
Court shall see that they are mere evasion
for the purpose of filling the Treasury. or of
individual oppression. That the law OF
Massachusetts, is not subject TO the objections
urged BY Judge Cur is ag inst he liquor law
of Rhode Island, which was decided by him
to be unconstitutional, inasmuch as that clog
ged the right of appeal from justice to ju-
ry, requiring bonds to pay all fines and costs
awarded against the defendant and increas.
ing the fine in case of conviction by jury
MIR. Choate saw no constitutional difficulty in
the destruction of the liquor when the owner
was known. In the case of an owner un-
known. he thought there was some difficulty
as to the true mode of proceeding, but he
seemed 20 think that if kept for sale, although
the owner is unknown, it may be destroyed
as nuisance, just as a ship engaged in SNUG.
Cling, whose owner is unknown.-O Other min.
or points were glanced at by Mr. Choate
The argument Of the defendants counsel we
have not had the pleasure of reading.