Smyrna times., 1855-07-18
Imported Liquor.

l..
An unusual effort is just now being made in = =
this and the adjoining cities. says the New York :,
Tribune, to make the Liquors retailed import
ed The object is very manifest. 1t is to
bring them under the exception in the FIRST
section of the Prohbtory Law.
What then is a fair construction of that Sec
ton relating to imported Liquor! 1t is plain
that had not Counsellor Dillon launched forth
that strange and sunwarranted opinion, behind
which our valiant Mayor seems so ready to
hide, it is doubtful whether the pitiful pretext
now offered would ever have been discovered.
His construction not only does violence to the
whole scope of the article, but stultiies the
Legislature. .t
I The object of the Legislature was "to pre-
vent intemperance, pauperism and crime" aud
that, too by restricting the sale of intox catlng
: drinks to degree beyond what former legisla:
tion had done. For that purpose the first section
contains a general sweeping prohibition OF the
traffic. 1t begins by saying, Intoxicating
liquor, except as hereinafter provided, shall not
G be sold or kept for SALE" This is the general
prohibition. Now the man who sells or keeps
for sale must bring himself within the exceP-
l. ton. If he sells or keeps for sale primG .facie
+ he is guilty but that presumption may be
y overcome by his showing that his act was with
IL in one of the exceptions.
What are the excepted cases! One of them,
Is and the one that is now being most shamefully
ST abused in New York, is that relating to import
lie ed liquor 1t reads thus: "Ths section shal
es not apply to liquor the right to sell which il
OF this State is given by any law or treaty of the
E. United States" What is fair common SENSE
ne construction of this clause! A liquor-selle
at turns out half gill of brandy from decante
Tx in his bar, sells it to drinker and pockets tn
re pay. He is prosecuted. He pleads the . righ
'sS to sell that which" Chat is, that partcula
NC glass of lquor) under a law of Congress. L
ID such II sethe burden of proof is on the seller
ne He must show himself within the exception
hu But where is the law of Congress which give
we any one the right to sell that liquor Is
ION urged that the right to import implies the rigl
ION to sell! Agreed. But how and under wh
sht circumstances At retail By the glass !
All over the State BY no means. The 81
preme Court has settled that. They have d
. cided, and that is all the law there is on tn
subject, that the right to sell was restricted
to the importer, and that too in the origin
packages. That the moment the PACKAGES a
:, broken the article is mixed with the mass
property, and as such is exclusively un3cr Sta
regulations. This is the highest law on I
point. Now is the seller by retail the re-
nal ISh hiSd nfor
80 original ID gallon package! Has not t
..;,I, package been broken! If never before, was
not broken when he poured it into the glass p!
If it was, then we challenge him or his lawy'
the to produce the act or treaty of the Unit
llev States which gives him the right TO sell Il
corn liquor in that state and condition and unC
ons- those circumstances Let us have the Ia
nsh. and if he cannot produce IT, why then the g.
res. eral prohibition cuts him down. Neither
opinion of Counsellor Dillon nor the order:
the Mayor will protect him.
hoiu We submit that this is the fair construct
''lon of the imported liquor clause There is no
men OF treaty that can be found giving "righ
8 re- coll" Gouor in ths State at retail bv the oil
,tes' The 22d section of the Prohbitory Law gi
the importer the right to sell in the orig
ight t,...s;,l,,,. ..,oI .,o,id no, .
1'O sell to such. But the construction given
Mr. Dillon allows to every retailer through
State more power than even the importer
gust, under the united states or the State Law
90 The true construction, on the other hi
ttrac- makes the intention Of the Legislature, the
clish- clsion oi the Supreme Court the provision
the 22I section, and the very title of the
all harmonic together.