Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-04-24
WEDNESDAY. APRIL "a. 1889.
Prohibition in Massachusetts.

ITOnjDlLlOO IN
The deiea, OF the proposed amendment to
che Constitution OF Massachusetts upon The
question OF the ratification OF which the
people OF tha. State voted day before yester-
day no doubt surprised the people OF good
many OF the other States more than IT did
the people OF Massachusetts,. Massachusetts
40 the public mind has long been associated
with Maine so far as the prohibition question
was concerned. In fact, large number oil
her counties and towns have at the present
time, we suppose, no lawful saloons. Tho
result IN Massachusetts, on Monday will no
doubt be regarded, rigbtiully or wrongfully,
ss n distinctive setback for the cause OF
prohibition.
Certainly 9 large number OF the very best
people In Massachusetts, must have voted
against the proposed amendment A ma
iority OF thirty thousand. ten thousand oil II
outside Of Boston-tbese figures arc nearly
enough correct for our present purpose-wss
not obtained without the assistance OF many
excellent citizens. The two distinguished
LAWYERS, L. II. and GEORGE +. HoAR, though
brothers, were upon different sides. we
have seen the statement that as rule the
Baptsts and Methodists were in favor OF
the amendment, and the Episcopalans OPP
posed to II. There Is modicum
OF truth in this generalization, but OF course
Il 10 not strictly correct Many hethodists
and Bapsists, no doubt, opposed the amend
ment, aud numbersof Episcopsllans favored
IL. Both Of the gentlemen named above are
Episccpalinns, we believe. The generaliza-
ton we speak Of left out the Roman Catho-
lies, the Uuitsrisns, and the Unwersalists.
the two former Of which denominations ex-
ercise great influence in Massachusetts,.
Norare the Jews included in 1t.
We have again and again had occasion 10
GAY that 1t would be unwise TO amend our State
Constitution IS means OF compelling the
creditors OF Virginia TO settle upon the basis
OF the RIDDLEBERGEB bill. seeing that In the
rresepce OF the Constitution OF the United
States provision Of Stste constitution IL
notone whit mere binding and effective than
ixw passed by the General Assembly and
approved BY the Governor. Whatever State
convention to amend the Constitution could
do insthis behalf a State Legislature could
do. There IL no difference whatever be-
tween the powers of State Constitutional
Convention and the powers Of State Legis,
Isturs when 1t comes TO passing laws or
framing constitutional provisions which can
be called In question in the Supreme Court
Of the United States.
So in Massachusetts, or any other State
constitutional amendment forbidding the
sale ard manufacture OF Intoxicating liquors
10 be used as beverage would possess no
element OF effectiveness not possessed by
law, The assumption OF the friends OF the
amendment was no doubt that the people
would look upon a constitutional proyi-
sion as possessing a sane,ity that did
not belong 10 an ordinary law. But
ahis assumption would have proved
90 be the reverse OF the fact had the pro-
.posed amendment been ratified. The result
would mostiikely have been that the people
would hayeceased TO entertain that high re-
spect tor the Constitution which they now
feel and have always felt. Even IN Maine
the prohibitory law Is far from being recog-
nized as one not to be violated. Let this be
rs Il NAV, constitutional amendments are by
no means desirable which would render
sovereign State more liable than It already Is
10 be summoned before the Supreme Court
Of the United States. The war dwarfed the
States too much. They ought not TO have
any less dignity and importance than they
now possess.
A few years ago Iowa passed alaw which,
because OF fits uneonstitutionslIty, was after
wards declared null and void by the Supreme
Count OF the United States. We sllude to the
law which prohibited the bringing OF liquors
into that State for sale. This law was an at
tempt upon the part Of the State Legislature
10 regulate interstate commerce. which by
the Constitution OF the United States Is
placed entirely under the control OF Con-
gress. A State constitutional amendment
having the same object In view would have
met the same fate which the law met, and
would have occasioned a loss OF respect for
the State constitution on the part OF the PEG.
pie Of Iowa.
W. NohNtN"Nt 'otAc'NAoi shet tHSNtH NAHH
sachusetts has defeated the proposed probibi.
ton amendment TO the Constitution, she has
Lost none Of her power over persons engaged
IN the manufacture aud sale Of Intoxicating IL
quors. Whatever IL proper to be done the
Legislature has full power TO do, A law
which has puolic opinion to back II Is the
only law that can be enforced.
--~-