The American issue. [volume] (Westerville, Ohio) 1912-19??, 1929-09-01

In 1855 the Legislature passed a very
stringent prohibitory liquor bill, common
ly known as the Maine law"-being a
total prohibition of both the sale and
manufacture of spirituous, vinous or malt
liquors, under heavy penalties of fines,
impriSonmentS, or both, and destruction
of liquors. It contained certain eXcep-
tions in favor of the making of cider,
wines and beer and ale for export. I'm
porters were allowed to sell in the original
packages only. The law was not to go
into effect unless approved by ma
jority vote of the people at special elec-
ton to be held in June of that year.
In 1851 had been adopted somewhat
stringent act known as the quart law"
It was designed to strike at tippling es-
adjustments, in prohibiting the sale of
spirituous and mixed mot malt) liquors
in less quantity than a quart by forbid
ding them to be drunk on the premises
where sold or given away; and by repeal
ing all laws granting license for these
purposes. The penalty was fine of $25.
The law produced great outcry of popu-
lar indignation, and was in 1853 repealed.
While the Legislature was thus bowling to
low clamor, the friends of temperance
were not idle. A state temperance con-
vention met at the capital in January.
Delegates to the number of 200, from all
parts of the state, were in attendance.
The leading participants were S. D. Lock-
wood, formerly supreme judge, the dis
tinguiShed pioneer and divine, j. M Peck,
D. D., Hons. B. S. Edwards, S. w. Robins,
Thomas M Taylor, c. P. West, w. G.
Vanmeter, Judge Grover, etc. Believing
Intoxicating drink to be the great incen-
tive to crime, they sought to reform So
ciety by abolishing this terrible tempta-
tion- The Maine law was undergoing trial
in several states at the time The use of
the hall of representatives was denied
them after protracted debate in the
House, by vote of 33 to 36. The con-
vention drafted a bill similar in its pro-
visions to the Maine law, which was pre-
sented to the general assembly for adop-
ton, but met with speedy defeat; some of
the strongest temperance members be-
lieving that moral SuaSion, and not ar
bitrary legislation, was the only mode of
approaching free, thinking people like
the Americans. voted against it. At the
special session of February, 1854, the
friends of temperance again assembled at
Springfield. The attendance was chiefly
from the northern part of the state. The
prohibitory bill was again introduced in
the Legislature, and this time faVorably
reported upon by the select committee on
temperance. Mr.. Palmer (since governor0
moved the submission clause as an
amendment, but for want of time no final
action was had upon it.
Leu Held Constitutional.
There were at the time grave doubts as
to the constitutionality of such law; but
at the June term of the Supreme Court,
in the case of Jacksonville vs. GODDARD,
these were in measure removed. jack
sonville by ordinance had declared the
sale of liquors a nuisance, making the Of
fense punishable by fine. Tt was con-
tended by the defendant that liquor was
property, and that the right to acquire
property, and holding, using and dispos-
ing of it was both natural and constitu-
tional, and could not be invaded by any
municipality under authority of the state
the right might be regulated but not de-
stroyed The court held that this doc
trine as universal principle was not
tenable. 1t depended upon the kind of
property; its use and disposal We sur
rendered both natural and social rights