Indiana American. [volume] (Brookville, Ind.) 1833-1861, 1854-02-17
From the Asbury Notes.
Gen. Cary's Address at Ind, anapo-

A SKETCH.
For the first time | have had the
pleasure Of hearing the great Temper
ancc Orator Of the West, Gen. s. +.
Cary.
His personal appearance and man
ner OF speaking are both pleasant and
interesting. but detailed description
Of either will not materially edify your
readers-lhereforc | viii not bore them
with anything OF the kind.
His speech was IN def ensc and adj
vocacy OF the 'Maine Liquor Law"
or a strong prohibitory law. y would
do Gen. 9. injuctico for me TO attempt
n synopsis Of his address--but some
things that ! distinctly remember will
note. lie said the Maine Liquor Law
did not undertake to say what man
should eat and drink, rs It's enemies
allego. Nordid il say even that man
should not drink rum. Ii simply says
IL shall not be made and sold as bev-
erage. You shall not put the bottle to
your neighbours mouth. II is notthen
an oppressive, but protective law
Have Legislative bodies a right to
make such laws? Most undoubtedly
they have. The public good and pro-
lection is the grand object Of all legis-
lation.
There is not an element in the
Maine Liquor Law but is contained in
the statutes ofevery State in the Union.
The great question is. does the public
good require-will it be promoted by
the suppression Of the liquor traffics
Does the sacrifice of 80, 900 human be-
ings annually argue that the public
good would be promoted by the de-
struction of this unholy work? What
ever concerns the public good is le-
gitimate subject Of legislation. Should
butcher establish his slaughter house
in the midst of your city, until the
stencil and filth proceeding from it were
declared a nuisance, have you any
law by which you could compel him to
remove his establishment? Would it
be right to-enfore this law? Would
it not be an interference with his pri-
vate rights? But the public good de-
mands thence it should be re
moved. There isno,hing in the Maine
Law more arbitrary and oppressive
than this.
Should merchant in any town or
city be seen unloading dray load of
kegs Of powder and depositing them in
his cellar, think you his neighbors
would not claim that the public safety
required their removal? Certainly
they would; and they would never rest
until that powder was in the powder
house," outside the corporation. 1t
might be inconyenient to the owner of
the powder to so. a half mile for his
powder, but what is the inconvenience
of one man to the safety and lives of
the community? This right to legis-
late for the good of the public, is the
basis of the Maine Law.
The business oflegislative bodies is
to interfere with meh's private affairs.
One man takes it on himself to steal
/ privately )-another to gamble, or
practice forgery, or defraud or poison
his fellow man; yet according to the
logic of our enemies, it is an interfe
renee with their private rights to dis
turb them. But our lawmakers think
not so, and so far, regard it as their
duty to interfere with these things,
that they enact appropriate laws Tor
their punishment.
Rum-sellers are in favor of the Ii
cense system. They want to be COM
missioned by the State to murder their
fellow men. We cannot regulate the
liquor traffic by law, for it is an irreg.
ularity in itself Regulate the whirl-
wind If you can-take all the twists
out of it and it is not whirlwind.-
But for liquor We should not probably
have had the riot in Cincinnati re-
Gently. There we have 5000 liquor
shops; and with all the police in the
world you could not prevent disorder
} while this is the case. Suppose you
had 5000 men peddling the itch, and
then you had a law on your statute
that men should not scratch-would
the law be observed? No, sir; the peo
pie would scratch any how. Stop tn,
peddlers and you will stop the scratch
ing. Shut up the liquor shops ant
you will stop disorder, blood and muir