The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1873-08-22


bureau "is powerless to protect brewers
and liquor dealers in states where laws au.
thorize' the seizure of liquors and the pun
ishment of dealers" II is said, upon the
same authority, that "thc authorities re-
greet that there has been this interference
with business" but they only discharge
their official duty in collecting the tax, etc.
What foundation is there for all this
The laws of Massachusetts,, as do those of
Vermont and some other states, prohibit
the manufacture, sale, ETC., of intoxicating
drinks-thc definition of which varies in
different states, some article being pro-
hlbitcd in one state and allowed in another.
Fines, penalties, imprisonments are pre-
scribed for violation of some of the pro-
visions of these state law, while a breach of
others super-adds forfeiture and the loss of
the specific article, which is made the
article of sale or intended sale, or which is
manufactured. These laws have been in
force for many years, certainly, in round
numbers for twenty years. Their details
have been changed from time to time, and
are still being constantly changed each
year, but their main features remain the
same The principle which underlies them
all, and upon which they are all con-
structed the search, for and seizure and
destruction of, the thing itself, and the
punishment of individuals by fine or i'm
| prisOnment, or both remains nnaltered.
1t is n right and power that the people of
the several states, acting through their
legislatures, have, and which cannot he
wrested from them without their consent
Each state can, for itself. prohibit the
manufacture and sale of intoxicating
drinks including ale and beer and fine
and imprison anyone that acts counter to
that prohibition. Long before an internal
revenue law was thought of, these
questions had been litigated in every con-
ceivablc form and through every possible
court, and the courts of last resort, both
state and national had declared that such
provisions did not conflict with either state
or national constitution. Long before there
was any necessity of raising revenue by
means of excise lawswe mean, of course,
during the last half century-the right and
| power of states to enact and enforce pro-
hibitory liquor laws had passed the realms
of discussion and doubt, and become cs-
tablished. SO that now, and ut the time
of the passage of the first internal revenue
law, soon after the outbreak of the rebel.
lion, prohibition was simply question OF
public policy and of local police regulation
for each state to decide upon its own re.
sponsiblity The trainers of that first
bill recognized this and enacted il accord
ingly.
The extraordinary efforts and 'expcnd
lures required to carry on the war for the
suppression of the rebellion, and to pre-
serve the integrity of the Union, rendered
it necessary that every possible means fol
raising the "sinews of war" should be re.
sorted to, and, for the second time, at least
in our history, an excise Or, as it is more
generally termed, an internal revenue--law
was enacted. Money must be had, and
that as speedily as possible. Indirect
rather than direct, taxation was resorted to
possible on the industries of the country OF
upon the necessares of life In enumerat
ing the articles to be taxed, and for tn,
manufacture or trade in which license.
should be required, intoxicating liquors
lottery tickets, etc, were selected to pay
the largest proportionatc burdens, as thei,
manufacture, use or sale could be well
nigh entirely dispensed with to the grea,
advantage of the community. In fixing
the amount of these taxes and licenses,
Congress was met with the fact that while
1t was lawful and proper to traffic in these
articles in certain states, in others they
were absolutely prohibited, and the
manufacture and sale thereof considered
criminal. In order to make taxation on q
specific article equal acknowledging the
sole right and power of regulating these
matters of public policy, or local police
regulation, to rest with the individual
states so that 1t might not thereafter. be
pretended that Congress attempted to over
ride state legislation and that it might
not be claimed that government license to
sell an article, upon which the United
States had levied and collected tax, gave
an individual, company or corporation the
right so to do, Notwithstanding the express
provisions of state law to the contrary,
they made the matter clear by the declara-
ton that the payment Of such tax and
license should not exempt the person pay
ing it from any penalty or punishment
provided by the laws of any state" for car
rying on such trade or business neither
should it in ANY manner authorize the
commencement or continuance of such
trade, business, or profession contrary to
the laws of such state. This was a part
OF the law as it first passed. and has con-
tnued to be the law for eleven years, with
ont essential, if any, alteration. 1t does
seem that it ought to be understood by this
time, and that sensible men would cease
claiming that an United States license and
tax protected them against State laws
but it is not so. Men in Vermont claim and
believe it to day. The Massachusetts, brew
ers, hotel keepers, and wholesale dealers
profess to believei it, and the Boston Herald
more than intimates it. Does 1t arise out
OF natural obtuseness, or a love of litiga-
ton : Which ever it is, they will butt
Their heads against rock, when they make
the attempt.