Year: 1873

The prOhlbitOry liquor laws of Massachusetts
are well known as having in one form or
another existed in that State for nearly twenty
years past They have been changed by
Legislature after Legislature, that body always
containing majorites friendly to prohibition,
and the changes being made so as to render
1t more stringent and effective. The law, as
1t now stands, Is said to be as strong a statute
for the purposes designed as can be enacted in
accordance with the Constitution Whenever
brought to the test of judicial trial it has
always been supported by Courts and juries
there being a special force of one hundred
State constabies appointed to see that it is
Obeyed Whether this law shall stand or shall
be repealed is the most important local question
in the "politics" of Massachusetts, and it will
have strong bearing upon the next election
there. General Butler who is very anxious TO
be the Republican candidate for Governor at
this election, recently announced his views on
the matter in which the prohbitory law is
administered in terms so bold and unusual
that they have attracted attention throughout
Massachusetts aud also beyond her boarders.


He SAID that although this law has Tor twenty
years teen improved and made more stringent,
no friend OF it can deny that it has been impO-
tent to stop III any considerable degrees, espe-
clally in the large towns and cities, the illegal
conveyance and sale of Intoxicating liquors.
Legislation had made this law all that could be
expected by its friends, and, quoting the legal
definition, that law is rule Of action,
General Butler went on to charge that it
looked very much in practice as if the author


tiles intended that the law should remain OH
the statute book, not as rule of action, " but
that where It was convenient and proper to
enforce it, there alone should it be executed,
but upon the influential and powerful it should
be lett uneXecuted. For years, he said it had
been merely 4 political farce, by which parties
have been manipulated The selling of liquor
was declared by it crime, and it was natural
to suppose that the greater the amount Of
liquor seized, the better would be the enforce
mcnt Of the law. Yet he said ''the poor man 5
quart jug has been microscOpioally hunted for
seizure, whilst "puncheons Of rum ir the rich
man cellars" has not been visible to the
naked eye of the State Constablos 1t is made
a high msdemeanOr for any railroad in the State


to carry single glass Of liquor that has not been


legally sold yet, in practice, the only liquor
that has ever been refused transportation by
the railroads has been that which has been
legally sold by the State agent. General
| Butler asserted broadly that if the railroads
were called to account, the conveyance OF
! liquor could easily be stopped, but this he
! stated, the authorities have no intention oi
doing. As it stands he described the Mass


achusettS prohibitory statute as mere law ol
exemption and indulgence for the rich and
powerful, whilst for the lowly it was license
law according 10 the political exgencies oil


those II power or the venaty or sloth of the


local officials. The general, however, through


out his remarks, very carefully concealed
whether he was for or against the principle o


the law !-Ledger.