Eastern times. [volume] (Bath, Me.) 1846-1857, 1855-08-23

man placed over us, pensioncd agent, to say
when we shall, and when we shall not have
liquors for medical necessities, The thing
is absurd. But, if the necessity was ever SO
great, and the Agent believed it to be SO, no
man can have any spirit from him, unless he
can prove himself an inhdbifant Of The to,cn
Any other medicines a stranger can have,
meals and lodgings, horse keeping, but, strange
to say. if temporarily sick, and away from his
friends, he cannot have drop of liquor from
the town agent, because he don't happen to be
a voter in the town. A fine distinction this,
between our fellow citizens in Maine, they are
all suspected Of becoming drunkdrds when they
pass from beyond the town of their residence.
How is man to proUe where he lives Must
he carry witness with him and justice of
the peace TO swear him, before his wants shall
be supplied. Suppose man lives on the
border of town, having an agency six miles
from his house, and another to the adjoining
town close at hand. He cannot go to the
nearest point to get liquors at an agency, for
the law says, they shall sell TO none, except
inhabitants of his own town. Again it is pro-
vded, that only one agent shall be appointed
for any town or city in the State. This is an
absurd provision. Why not let each town
and city determine questions affecting the con-
venience of the inhabitants for themselves
Why restrict large cities, like Portland, Ban
gor and Rockland, having from $4,000 down
TO 6 1000 inhabitants, each to one agency Z
One agent cannot supply the wants of the in
habitants, and there must be, consequently,
frequent sales by unauthorized persons in vio-
lation Of the statute, and this, too, from ex-
treme necessity. But what is this agent or
overseer! Is he recording officer, He is
hx,e .xft III l,,x
account OF every sale of liquors made by him,
with the name of each purchaser, the purpose
for which purchased, the quantity, price and
date of the sale, such record 10 be open to the
inspection of every justice of the peace in the
State, disposed to meddle in the peoples af-
fairs And thus is the back-biter enabled to
hunt down his neighbor, to take minutes from
the agents record, of the nature of the dis
eases of his wife and children, how much spir-
it they make use of in the family, what is paid
for it, and how often it is required; encourag-
ing system of espionage, ever at variance
with every mans sense of decency and propri-
ETY.. Thus are the people to be guarded and
watched like so many thieves and pickpock-
cts, lest they should make an improper use of
ardent spirits, and this, too, when the agent
cannot control the use of the liquor when sold.
Mems minds are not to be informed, their con-
sciences enlightened, the misuse of ardent
spirits, checked but by terror and fear, pur-
suing them like culprits, because their steps
to liquor agencies, charged as evidences of
intemperance on their part. But time would
fail me, TO allude in the most cursory manner,
to the multiplied absurdities embraced in this
law, and all on the false pretence of advancing
the cause of temperance! Alas, what antics
are practiced under the guise of this goodly
and world approved virtue, to cheat and delude
the wise as well as the ignorant, whose love
of that great virtue makes them over credu-
lous, easily convinced, and easily misled.
Look at the penalties of this law, fellow
cltlzens--are they not so far dispropof,ioned
to the offence as 10 weaken the law and rem
der its general enforcement a nullity While
in other States-New Hampshire for instance
the first offence is punished bv fine, the
first offence against our law is a fine and i'm
prisonment besides in all cases. Under the
law of 1851 there was no Imprisonment for
the first or second offence of selling glass of
liquor-each successive offence punished
by fine only-and so, too, under the statute
of 1853, but the present law is a different af-
fair altogether, and perfect bundle of absurd
tiles crudely put together. The wisest of
lawgivers have always made it a point TO pro-
psftion punishment according to each degree
of guilt, making marked distinction between
misdemeanors and crimes. In this law. how
ever, no reference at all is had to such consid-
erations. The penalties are all harsh, unrea-
sOnable and disproportioned to the offence
BY our statute the sale of one glass of liquor
or of any liquid that can intoxicate is pun
ished for the first offence by $50 fine and thir-
~ days imprisonment-the second offence by
sixty days, the third by ninety days and twen-
ty dollars fine, and the fourth and all subse-
quent offences by fine of two hundred dol
lars, and six months Imprisonment in Jail
Under this wise law, so full of penalties
and so destitute of legal and humane provi-
sions, any man who sells four glasses of cider
successfully, or four glasses of beer, (and
neither beverage is intoxicating unless drunk
to excess, )would be liable to fine of $500,
and one years Imprisonment in Jail Where
is the reason or propriety, TO say nothing of
humanity, in such penalties In such cases !!
Will it not render the law by-word and re-
proach In the mouth of the drinker or the liq-
uor dealer, and lead to an utter disregard of
all law devised to check the traffic.
All who hear me are liable to be called to
sit upon jury panels under this over wise-law.
Now, suppose man should be brought before
you as jurors, accused OF having sold three
glasses of cider since last March, when the
law was enacted, and you are called 10 pass
upon the fourth offence of selling a glass of
wine, beer, cider, or cordial, and suppose, al
so, that counsel should appear in his defence
and appeal to you as judges of the law, (and
jurors are so in criminal cases,) whether it
would be right to imprison a man one whole
year for this, what would be your answer !
You would either disagree in opinion, and
defeat the prosecution, or, acquit the accused
and suffer him to 60 unpunished And such
will be the result of this law 1t virtually re-
peals itself, for it cannot command the public
sentiment to sustain it. Why did our fore
fathers say in the Constitution that excessive
fines should not be imposed, nor cruel and
unusual punishments inflicted Did they not
mean something by it! And in the Constitu-
tion of our own State is it not expressly de-
clared that all penalties and punshments shall
be proportioned to the offence, in 50 many
words.i How, then, in the face and eyes Of
such authority, can honest and unprejudiced
minds deny that the penalties in the present
law are altogether at war with precedent and
authority, and at variance with the Constitu-
tions, State and National! Time was in
England when bloody code of law prevailed,
and men were hung for horse stealing and 9TH
er larcenies; but that relic of barbarous times
has passed away, even in England. Our
fathers never adopted such codes. They dis