Lamoille newsdealer. [volume] (Hyde Park, Vt.) 1860-1877, 1866-04-04
THE MAss.CBUsETTs LIQUOR CASES.

THE MASSACHUSETTS LioCch IasEs,
We reprint the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States in the case of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts VS.
John Mcguire of Salem for selling liquor
contrary to the law of the State. The de-
cision was given by Jupge Wayne, and is
as follows -
This is a writ of error to the Superior
Court of Massachusetts,. The plaintiff in
error, the defendant below. was indicted
for the sale and keeping of intoxicating
livvors against a statute of the State The
defendant pleaded not guilty. On trial
it was proved that the defendant kept a
houee for the sale and for the drinking of
Intoxicating liquors, which acts we're ad-
mitted to be illegal and in violation of
the law of the State unless the defendant
was authorized to keep and sell intoxica-
ting liquors by virtue of license granted
in conformity with the provisions of the
act of Congress. '.s .'.
The license is in the following words ::
This license is granted to Mcguire &
Co, of the city of Salem, in the county of
Essex and State of Massachusetts. to car
ry on the business or occupation of a
Wholesale dealer in liquors at No. 6 Der
by square in the aforementioned city, coun,
ty aud State having paid the tax of 300
therefor, conformably to the provisions of
the act entitled, IAN act to provide inter
nal revenue to support the government
and to pay interest on the public debt, APP
proved July l, 1862"
The court below decided that this H.
cense gave to the defendant no right to
keep or sell intoxicating liquors in viola
ton of the State law Whatever might
be the effect of this license as to the rights
claimed in the absence of other provis-
ions of the act of Congress, question
not involved in the case and therefore not
matclia it is quite clear that it conferred
no right or authority on the defendant
below, and hence furnished no defence to
the indictment under the law Of The State.
The thirty seventh section of the act of
Congress enacts that no license hereinbe-
fore provided for, if granted, shall be con-
strued to authorize the commencement or
continuation of any trade, business, occu
patton or employment therein mentioned
within any State or Territory of the I'm
tied States in which it is or shall be spec
tally prohibited by the laws thereof, or in
violation of the laws of any State or Ter
ritory In view of this provision, it is in
vain to attempt to give force or effect to
the license against the State law, and
hence the authority derived from it upon
which the defendant relied for his defence
in the court below fails. The decision
was against the authority set up under an
act of Congress, and the case is therefore
rightfully here under the 25tb section of
the judiciary act, but as we are of opinion
that the decision Of the court below was
right, the judgment must be affirmed
A dispatch to the Associated Press says
that on Wednesday Mr.. Richardson of
Boston is to make an argument before
the committee on ways and means in ia.
vor of making licenses a protection for
the sale of spirituous liquors. instead of
a permission, as first decided by the Su.
preme Court of the United States