Page images
PDF
EPUB

those who are determined to evade the law and keep up the business of making drunkards. But wherever this is done, it is done secretly. Rum-taverns and rum-shops, known to be such, are, I believe, very rarely to be found."

A late number of the Hartford Courant contained the following:

"In the month of July there were twenty commitments to the workhouse-in the month of August, only eight. In the month of August last year, sixteen. There have been twenty-three persons discharged from the workhouse since the 1st of August of the present year, and on Saturday, September 9th, there was not a single male person in the workhouse, which, except for a couple of females, would be tenantless. There has not been a parallel to this state of things at any season of the year for eight years at least; for how much longer we do not know, but we presume there never was. Is there a sane person who doubts for an instant what has caused this result?"

The Norwich Examiner says: "We have consulted the records of the jail in this city (Norwich), and our findings are as follows:

Whole number committed from

Aug. 1, 1853, to Jan. 31, 1854,
Feb. 1, 1854, to July 31, 1854,
Aug. 1, 1854, to Jan. 31, 1855,

Whole No. in confinement Feb. 3, 1855,

110

90

62

16

Here it will be seen that the number committed for six months under the law is 48 less than the number committed for a like period of the previous year, under the former law.

The commitments to both jails (Norwich and New-London) were as follows:

Aug. 1, 1853, to Jan. 31, 1854,
Aug. 1, 1854, to Jan. 31, 1855,

170

86

Here is a falling off of 84 commitments in six months, in a single county, and of course a saving of judicial and criminal expenses, and of the shame and suffering caused by

crime.

The proportion of liquor cases in the above committals to Norwich jail was as follows:

Of the 110, 37; of the 90, 40; and of the 62, 24. And of these 101 liquor cases, 90 were for drunkenness."

Mr. THOMAS ROBERTSON, the jailor at New-London, reports as follows:

"Whole number committed from Aug. 1, 1853, to Feb. 1, 1854, as follows: Aug., 10, Sept., 7, Oct., 4, Nov., 13, Dec., 13, Jan., 7; in all, 60.

"From Aug. 1, 1854, to Feb. 1, 1855, as follows: Aug., 2, Sept., 10, Oct., 4, Nov., 3, Dec., 2, Jan., 3; in all, 24."

There were only 3 in confinement February 1, 1855; one for selling, one for drinking, and one for horse-stealing. He adds: "I assure you that the Maine Law works wonders in. New-London, and is getting more popular. There is less of misery and wretchedness, our streets are more quiet, the countenances of a certain class are very much improved, and it is so quiet here evenings that we can truly say, 'we sit under our own vine, and there are none to make us afraid.''

It will be seen, that only two fifths as many have been committed during the past six months as were committed during the corresponding period a year ago, under the old law. It is not strange that the law should grow in favor with the people in New-London.

The keeper of the New-London Almshouse reports that the average number of inmates for the year ending Oct., 1854, was 33, and that the average number since that time is not over 12. The present number (Feb. 5) is 9, and a majority of these have been there for several years. The matron says, she has no trouble with so few to take care of, and that the Maine Law has made a great difference between this winter and last winter, when they had thirty all the while."

MASSACHUSETTS.

The first movement made in this State towards a prohibitory law, was a motion made by Rev. T. W. Higginson, in the Essex County Temperance Convention, held September, 1851, to collect statistics on the subject from Maine. Pursuant to this motion, Mr. Higginson, as chairman of a committee appointed for the purpose, addressed circulars to different gentlemen in that State, proposing to them the following questions:

1. Does the execution of the Maine law obtain the unanimous support of temperance men, and does it enlist others who have hitherto been inactive?

2. Does it create any opposition in the minds of indifferent persons, as a daring invasion of private property?

3. Is there, or can there be, any guarantee of its execution where the majority of citizens or public officers are opposed or indifferent to it?

4. Are there yet any indications of reaction?

5. Do dealers abandon the traffic, or do they appear to be only suspending it, as if cherishing some hope of a repeal or modification?

6. Has the law been in any way mingled with political party movements, or is this likely to occur?

7. Does not the chief power of the law lie in the seizure and confiscation of intoxicating liquors?

8. Would it be desirable to make such a law applicable to the counties separately, or should it be enforced throughout the State?

To these questions the answers received were to the committee, as advocates of the Maine Law, abundantly satisfactory. For some of the general remarks contained in these answers, we would refer to the "Effects of the Maine Law in Maine," (page

On the 22d of May, 1852, a law was passed called the "Massachusetts Anti-Liquor Law," which took effect sixty days after its passage. With reference to the working of this law there is much confliction of testimony. In some places it seems to have worked well, in others not. The difficulty was in the fact that it was not enforced. But it is difficult to enforce any law when it or any portion of it has been by any authority, though that authority be not supreme, declared unconstitutional.

In December, 1853, the constitutionality of the 14th and 15th sections, authorizing the search, seizure, and destruction of liquor, was strongly contested before the Supreme Court. Hon. Rufus Choate defended the constitutionality of the law; but the

[ocr errors]

Court decided that, while the Legislature may declare the possession of certain articles of property to be unlawful, and may provide by a process of law for the abatement of the nuisance and the punishment of the offender, yet the system of seizure, authorized by this statute is inconsistent with the principles of strict justice, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution of the commonwealth, and must therefore be held unconstitutional and void.

The decision given was in substance as follows:

1. One portion or provision of a statute may be unconstitutional and void, and all the other provisions constitional and valid. Hence, the decision. on the 14th section does not affect the other provisions of the law.

2. The principle of the law-to wit, the right of search, seizure, forfeiture, and destruction-is constitutional, legitimate, and proper. The provision in the Constitution against taking private property for public use without compensation,' does not apply to the principle of the law.

3. The machinery by which the principle of the section is carried out and applied, is unconstitutional. The main objection is, that the defendant does not have a proper trial within the provisions of the Constitution.

The decision did not touch the validity of the law; but it prevented an action under the 14th section.

Of course the prohibitionists were not satisfied with a law which was weakened by doubts as to its constitutionality. Hence they renewed their efforts for the attainment of a new law, which should be not only prohibitory, but also decidedly constitutional. This object has just been gained, at least it has been gained so far as the passage of a law is concerned.

As the law was not passed until the 30th of last month, (April, 1855,) and does not take effect until the 20th of the present month, not much can be said in regard to its constitutionality. We can only say, "it is understood that the Supreme Court of the

State is of the opinion that it is constitutional. Attorney-General Clifford entertains the same opinion.'

The main provision of the bill is as follows:

"If any person, by himself, his clerk, servant, or agent, shall, directly or indirectly, or on any pretense, or by any device, sell, or, in consideration of the purchase of any other property, give to any other person any spirituous or intoxicating liquor, or any mixed liquor, part of which is spirituous or intoxicating, in violation of the provisions of this act, he shall, on being convicted of one such violation of the provisions of this act, pay ten dollars and the costs of prosecution, and be imprisoned in the House of Correction not less than twenty, nor more than thirty days: on being convicted of a second such violation thereof, either at the same or another term of the court, or on the same complaint or indictment which charges the first such violation of this act, or on another, he shall pay twenty dollars and the costs of prosecution, and shall be imprisoned in the House of Correction not less than thirty, nor more than sixty days; on being convicted of a third, and any subsequent, such violation of this act, either at the same or a different term of the court, or on the same complaint or indictment which charges the first and second, or any, violation or violations of this act, or on another complaint or indictment, he shall pay fifty dollars and the costs of prosecution, and shall be imprisoned in the House of Correction not less than three, nor more than six months; and if any clerk, servant, or agent, or any other person, in the employment or on the premises of another, shall violate the provisions of this section, he shall be held equally guilty with the principal, and, on conviction, shall suffer the same punishment."

NEW-HAMPSHIRE.

At the November session of the Legislature of this State in 1852, a prohibitory bill passed the House, but was rejected by the Senate. While this bill was pending before the Senate, the following named Justices of the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, JOHN JAMES GILOHRIST, ANDREW SALTER WOODS, IRA A..

« PreviousContinue »