Monongalia mirror. [volume] (Morgantown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1855, 1854-04-22
Hon. Rufus ChOate on the Maine Liquor
Law,

| LAM
The question of the constitu,ionality
of the anti.liquor law of Massachusetts,,
whose essential features are similar to
those Of the Maine liquor law, has re-
Gently been submitted to full bench OF
the Supreme. Court of that State. The
Attorney General, Hon. Rufus Choate,
conducted the argument OH behalf Of
the State. This question has become
of such general interest that we make
no apology for noticing bis leading
points. Mr.. Choate cons idered it con-
clusively settled by the decisions of the
Supreme Court of the United States,
ihaIt it was perfectly competent for the
State Legislature to ortiain as they had
done, that in regard to domestic spirits
and in regard to all spirits alter they
have landed aud after they have been
broken into packages smalIer than the
luws of the United States Government
allow TO. be sold, aud have thus been
Withdrawn from the guardianship Of the
general government, i, shall be illegal
to keep them, or to deposite them with
intent 10 sell for the purpose of drink
ing or without a license TO deposi,e
them or keep them with intent To sell
at all. After the general government
has collected its revenues on imported
liquors, and they have left the original
packages of importation aud after they
have become blended with aud parcel of
that complex subject of property, the
circumstances of which form the gener-
al object of the police and Legislation
of the state, the State may then ahso-
lutely prohibit their sale. That as u
penalty for the violation Of such a stat
ulo the State may inflict q fine or destroy
the liquor. That its destruction is
equivalent TO a forfeiture Of property
and dnes not differ from a fine. That
although as much property as houses.
lands or goods, it may, when it becomes
means Of, or temptation 10 evil, lose
its character Of property aud become a
nuisance. just as the smuggler's ship.
the couutelieiter's tools, implements of
gaming, shingles not of size prescli-
bed by statute, lottery tickets, &C., all
Of which ale properly till used contra-
ry to law.
That its destruction by the State is
no more the taking of private property
for public use Than the imposition Of a
fine on tho riOter or the taking ofa mur-
derer's life, or the outlawry of the ar
ticles above named-anl that such laws
are not unconstitutional, unless the
Court shall see that they are mere
evasiun 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
Curtis against the liquor law of Rhode
Island, which was decided by him to be
unconstitutional, inasmuch as that clog
ged the right of appeal from justice
10 jury, requiring bonds to pay all
fines aud casts awarded against the de-
fendauts, aud increasing the fine in case
of conviction by ajury. Mr.. Choate
saw no constitutional difficulty in the
destruction of the liquor when the own
or was known. In the case Of an own
er unknown, he thought there was some
difficulty us to the true mode of pro-
ceeding; but he seemed to think that
if kept for sale, although the owner is
unknown, it may he destroyed as nui-
sauce, just as a ship engaged in Snug
Cling, whose owner is unknown. OH
er minor points were glanced at by Mr..
Choate.-Saturday Erening Mail.