New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1868-07-05

even questions bue p4l...,.. r......-.
a community has right TO abate a
nuisance? Of course it is their right,
and duty, too, to Judge and determine
what is a nuisance. What has Maine
done more than this ~ ~ 3 '-.
This is sound doctrine. This doc
trine, moreover, was most fully affirm
ed by the Justices of the Supreme
Court of the United States when Civ
ing their decision in suit brought to
test the constitutionality of certain
prOhihitory laws passed by Massa-
chusetts, Rhode Island, and New
Hampshire. The late Chief Justice
fancy held the following language:
IF any State deems the
retail and internal traffic in
ardent spirits injurious to It's citizens,
and calculated to produce idieness,
vice, or debauchery, see nothing in
the Constitution Of the United States
to prevent it from regulating or re-
straining the traffic, or from prohibit
| ing it altogether if it thinks proper"
With this opinion the other Justices of
the court fully CONQUERED.
Let it be distinctly observed, also,
that the, principle of the Maine law
claims no greater power than has al
ways been conceded and assumed in
the license system. This system says
| to the many that they shall not engage
in the liquor traffic; while, at the
same time, for a paltry tax, it grants
the privilege to the few. Now, clear
ly, if the State has power to pro
hibit the traffic in respect to one-half
or nine-tenths Of her citizens, she has
equal power to prohibit it in respect to
all; if she may make the business
unlawful except when licensed, if
she may confer the right to sell,
then she may withhold that
license, and make the traffic unlawful
to all her citizens and whether she
shall do the one or the other is not
question of power, but of expediency
and duty. Hence, as you perceive,
the liquor law of Maine does not claim
or exercise any new power on the part
of the State. r t'
But it may be said that this law
confscates and destroys private prop
erty when kept and used contrary to
the provisions of the statute, This is
true. Remember, however, that this
is part of the penalty for the crime of
such keeping and using, and of course
affects none but the man who breaks
the law. If he were a aw-abiding
citizen the penalty would not harm
the hair of his head. Those who lose
their property by seizure and oonfsca-
ton are those, and those only, who
use it unlawfully. The tools and i'm
plements of counterfeiter are seized
and destroyed, being forfeited by their
unlawful use. The fact that the CON
fiscated property is not put into the
public treasury but destroyed by the
State does not in the slightest degree
enhance the pecuniary damage of the
individual. He simply loses it, as a
penalty inflicted for violating the law
of the land. ...'..
In the light of this reasoning, the
principle of the liquor law of Maine
is a perfectly legitimate exercise of
the powers belonging to civil society.
1t undertakes to abate and remove a
nuisance, and this is my answer to the
objection Offered by gentleman yes
terday to the petitioning for the pas
sage of Maine liquor law in Louisi-
ana "that it would interfere with the
property rights of individuals" In
diYiduals have no right to create or
perpetuate nuisance.
We reiterate that the principle of
the Maine liquor law ought to be put
into action By every civil community
that is hardened and cursed with the
liquor traffic. We have stated its end,
the thing which it aims to do. We
have also shown that it is the only sys-
tenn adapted to this end. and we have
further considered the powers of civil
society to do such work. Now we
take the ground that it is the duty of
society thus to act.
1t may be further objected that al
though society ought to do something,
it ought not to use remedy of So
much severity as the liquor law of
Maine. This depends altogetherapon
q question Of fact. IF I could sGssl . d
disease with rose water 1 certainly
would not use caustic, but 1 would
use caustic rather than let
the patient die. So in this case; if it
be the purpose of civil society to break
up the liquor traffic on account of
evils incident to it, and to employ the
arm of law for this end, then you must
have law enough to do the work.
If the preceding arguments are not
based on truth, then an American
community has no legal power to pro-
hibit any business that is as a whole
injurious to it. Take this TO be so
that they can not legally help
themselves, then the extent of the
injury does not affect the principle
involved, although that extent may
reach the point where one-quarter Of
a community are sent by it into pre-
mature graves; another quarter rem
.dered insane; another quarter made
beggars and criminals and the re-
maining quarter, taxed to their last
dollar to meet the expenses of confn-
ing the insanes supporting the pau
pers, and in bringing the thieves and
mufderers to Justice.
Laws on the principle of the Maine
law have with varying results been
adopted in several States. While
public opinion is strong enough 20
enact such, the moral force to sustain
them is usually wanting. The public
move only under the smart Of wrong,
cd ,.IoY kboA - ,So.k Ill 3. c....o4Ar -.