extent that we can not at present foresee. The whole of the great sum which was formerly expended for strong drinks by the people of this city and State, will henceforth be expended for the necessaries and comforts of life, with the additional amount which will accrue from the more industrious habits of the people, or will be added year by year to the accumulating wealth of the State."

In another part of his report, the Mayor says:

"There were committed to the Alms House from June 1, 1850, to March 20, 1851, (before the law,) 252; from June 1, 1851, to March 20, 1852, (after the law,) 146--difference in nine months, 106. Number in Alms House March 20, 1851, 112; number in Alms House March 20, 1852, 90-difference, 22. Number of families assisted out of the Alms House from June 1, 1850, to March 20, 1851, 135; from June 1, 1851, to March 20, 1852, 90-difference in nine months, just one third, 45. Seventy-five of the ninety in the Alms House March 20, 1852, came there through intemperance-four of the ninety were not brought there through that cause; the history of the remaining eleven is not known.

"Committed to the House of Correction for intemperance from June 1, 1850, to March 20, 1851, 46; for larceny, etc., etc., 12-in all 58; from June 1, 1851, to March 20, 1852, for intemperance, 10; for larceny, etc., etc., 3—in all 13; a difference in nine months of more than three fourths! Committed in April, 1851, 9; in May, 10-19. The 'Maine Law' was enacted June 2, 1851, and from the first of that month to March 20, 1852, 10 months, the number committed was only 10, although great activity was displayed by the police in arresting all offenders.

"At the term of the District Court in Portland, March, 1852, but one indictment was found for larceny, and that was the result of mistake; while at the March term of 1851, seventeen indictments were found. These results have been obtained, notwithstanding an increased vigilance in arresting persons found under the influence of strong drinks.

"Committed to the jail for drunkenness, larceny, etc., from June 1, 1850, to March 20, 1851, 279; for corresponding period of 1851-2, 135-difference, 144. Deduct liquor sellers (72) imprisoned in the latter term, and we have 63 for drunkenness, larceny, etc., etc., against 279 for the corresponding period before the enactment of the 'Maine Law,'

a deduction of almost seven ninths in the short period of nine months! There were in jail on the 20th March, 1851, 25 persons; on the 20th March, 1852, 7 persons, 3 of whom were liquor sellers-without them the number would be 4 against 25 of the corresponding day of 1851, a falling off of more than 83 per cent. in the short period of nine months.

"There were committed to the watch-house from June 1, 1850, to and including March, 1851, 431 persons. For the corresponding period of 1851-2, after the enactment of the 'Maine Law,' the number was 180, a deduction of almost three fifths, notwithstanding the increased vigilance of the police in the latter period, in arresting persons found in the streets in a state of intoxication."

THE LAW EXECUTED.

The following, from a Maine journal, shows the effect of the law in the town of Berwick, Maine:

'Benjamin Stillings, fined $20, and paid to settle, rather than go to court, including fine, $170. Liquor destroyed, 42 gallons.

Ivory Chadborn, fined $80, on two seizures and single sales-paid to settle in total, $200. Liquor déstroyed, 222 gallons.

"Oliver Worster, town clerk of Berwick, fined $20; paid to settle, $242.42. Liquor destroyed, 261 gallons.

"Horn and Cooper, fined $20; paid to settle, $100. Liquor destroyed, 147 gallons.

"Lewis D. Reed, fined $20; paid to settle, $44.36. Liquor destroyed, 6 gallons.

"Oliver Parsons-paid to settle, $126.50.

"The whole amount of money paid voluntarily by these men, rather than take their chance at the County Court, including their fines, is $883.28. The surplus, after paying the cost of prosecution, goes to assist the poor of the town. "The liquor, as stated above, is according to the court record, which is at least one third less than reality, therefore, when the third is included, the number of gallons destroyed

is 904."

SUCCESS ATTENDS.

The overseers of the House of Correction in Portland, in their report to the County Commissioners, say:

"For the year ending June, 1853, we felt much encouraged when we were enabled to report that there had been but forty-nine commitments for the year, or less than one a week. But how much more pleasure it gives us, you may judge, and will undoubtedly participate in, as all human hearts will, to state that the commitments for the year ending with June, 1854, are but nineteen! a diminution of thirty. And, better still, that for the last six months, there have been but seven. This is, certainly, a most cheering

account.

"With but one exception, these were sentenced to the house for that devastating sin, drunkenness. Remove that evil from our midst, and the cells would be solitary. It seems, by the comparison of the two years, to be fast diminishing. We trust another year may present a purer docket."

REMARKS OF SUNDRY RESIDENTS OF MAINE ON THE

WORKING OF THE LAW.

Rev. F. YATES: The working of the law has exceeded our most sanguine expectations. In this city (Gardiner) the open sale is entirely suppressed.

Dr. C. JORDAN: A great incidental power of the law is in the removal of temptation from rum drinkers. Many intemperate men rejoice to have temptation removed. At this moment thousands of such are now supporting their families respectably, and rejoicing in their prosperity, and would tremble at the repeal of the law. The greatest obstacle the law has to meet is the influence of Boston rum and Boston money.

J. E. GODFREY, Esq.: Maine is already deriving great benefit from this law. Pauperism and crime are diminishing, and intemperate men reforming. We can not expect that the law will suppress drinking, but it will, and does, stop the open sale, and many debasing effects. It is understood that Massachusetts dealers are determined to use all

their influence to promote its repeal. You will do us a service by endeavoring to give them sufficient employment at home.

Rev. C. PALFREY: The law has been a matter of wonder to me from the beginning. It took me entirely by surprise. It was not preceded by the usual preparatory discussion preceding an extraordinary step in legislation. When I first read it I regretted it. I thought it far outwent public opinion that it could not be enforced—that any attempt to enforce it would make trouble, and would reäct unfavorably. I have been surprised again to find these apprehensions so groundless-that the law has been so universally and quietly submitted to.

Rev. J. P. RICHARDSON, of Otisfield: There is a mystery about the state of matters in Maine, which I can hardly solve. The passage of our temperance law by so overwhelming a majority, surprised both the friends and foes of temperance. The general and almost universal submission to the law is still more surprising. We want Massachusetts to do as they sometimes do in our woods-kindle a back-fire to stop one conflagration.

Rev. A. BATTLES: There is scarcely a city or village in the State which has not been greatly improved by the exist ence of the law. So far as this city (Bangor) is concerned, every one is ready to admit the change. An intoxicated person is now rarely seen. Only about half as many have been imprisoned in the jail during the last three months, as in the three months previous.

Rev. S. C. FESSENDEN: Our principal opposition to the law comes from out of the State-from the dealers who have been in the habit of visiting our towns annually, and who come now from Boston and elsewhere in the hope of smuggling liquor, and vent their spite against the law.

A. P. HIGGINS, Esq.: The law works well, but would far better if Massachusetts had a similar one. At present Boston is our greatest scourge.

M. DAVIES, Esq., of Belfast: Our new law, severe as it is, has not met with a tithe of the opposition that the old law did. It is altogether the most popular with the rumsellers themselves. There are two reasons for this: First, it is successful, and any thing to be popular must succeed. Secondly, it makes us to treat all alike. Formerly one might be convicted and his neighbor escape. But now we take them

in course.

More than one rumseller in this place has told me, "If you can entirely stop the traffic, I am glad of it; but if others sell, I will." We take them at their word, and the traffic here is suppressed, though all the leading influences in the place were against us. Moreover, the law has done more to elevate public sentiment than any we have had. It proves that you may have a law which seems in advance of the public conscience, and build up that conscience by its means. This has been too much overlooked.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE MAINE LAW.

L. M. SARGENT, Esq., of Boston, says:

"It would be surprising if this law should not be resisted by the liquor dealers and tipplers of Maine. Already it has been stated that some legal gentlemen of that State have expressed an opinion that the law is unconstitutional. I have read-I may say, studied-the several provisions of this law with considerable care, and I have not been able to raise a doubt of its constitutionality."

In the famous New-Hampshire case, which came before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1845, in which the right of a State to withhold all license of the traffic in ardent spirits, and at the same time retain on its statute-book a prohibition to sell without license, was contested, Chief Justice TANEY declared:

"Every State may regulate its own internal traffic, according to its own judgment, and upon its own views of the interests and well-being of its citizens. I am not aware that these principles have ever been questioned. If any State deems the retail and internal traffic in ardent spirits injurious to its citizens, and calculated to produce idleness, vice, or debauchery, I see nothing in the Constitution of the United States to prevent it from regulating and restraining the traffic, or from prohibiting it altogether, if it thinks proper."

Justice CATRON said:

"If the State has the power to restrain by licenses to any extent, she has the discretionary power to judge of its