EASTMAN, SAMUEL D. BELL, gave it as their opinion that there were certain constitutional objections to the bill.

In 1854, another bill, entitled "An Act for the Suppression of Intemperance," passed the House, but was rejected in the Senate.*

VERMONT.

On the 23d of November, 1852, a prohibitory law was passed in Vermont, which has withstood thus far the criticisms of the Supreme Court of the State, and is still in successful operation. Its constitutionality has, however, at times been contested, but has always been sustained by the higher courts.

In proof of the successful and beneficial operations of this law we have abundance of evidence. In a late communication on the subject, MOSES KIDDER, of Woodstock, (Vt.,) says:

The

"The result of the operation of the law has been, and daily is, beneficial to the people of the State. There is comparatively but a small amount of intoxication, and it is daily growing less. Opposition to the law is gradually subsiding, and the people begin to feel, as a matter of course, they must contrive some way to live without rum. good resulting from the law is seen throughout the State in all its industrial operations, pauperism is abating, criminal prosecutions are less frequent, and jails are sometimes without a single occupant. When New-York on one side of us, and New-Hampshire on the other, shall cease to furnish our people with rum, which in the case of New-York will soon be done, we hope, we shall realize still better times."

Says the late Speaker of the House of Representatives: "Ten thousand streams of woe have been dried at their fountains; pauperism has been most surprisingly diminished in many localities; county jails have, in many instances, become tenantless; drunken rows, for which Vermont, under her former iniquitous license laws, was so proverbial, are now reckoned almost entirely among the things that were; and gross inebriety, if witnessed at all, excites aston*See Appendix.

ishment, and is quite sure to furnish the means of detecting and punishing the offender. Thus much has the law accomplished for our State."

Col. HARBON, the keeper of the Vermont State prison, says: "The pecuniary prospects of our prison look rather gloomy for want of more convicts; four years ago, we had 92 convicts; now, only 65. A large portion of our expenses are the same, with this small number, and the receipts must be about $2500 less for this year than then.

But

"I have looked about for the cause. 1st--Thought jus tice was not meted out as it should be by our courts. I am driven to the conclusion, after all, that our stringent Liquor Law is the real cause; which, I am sure, is an injury to the prison in this respect, and will be the means of its calling on the State Treasury for a portion of its support; when, if no Liquor Law was in force, it would be able to pay a small sum into the Treasury annually. After all, I think the law is doing more good than harm, and hope it will be enforced more efficiently than ever, in future."Rutland Herald.

MINNESOTA.

It was not long after the adoption of the Maine Law in Maine ere a similar law was adopted in Minnesota; but it was soon declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, "because it was referred to and voted by the people." The decision did not, however, condemn the law, only the manner of its adoption. Had it been adopted by the Legislature directly, and not by submission to the people, no fault would have been found with it by the Courts. The effects of the law during the short period of its operation were thus summed up in a memorial to the Legislature:

It has prevented the opening of any new liquor establish

ments.

It has closed about half of the old ones.

It has greatly diminished intemperance and its conse quent evils.

It has prevented making drunkards of sober men.

It has helped to impress the public mind with a belief that rum-selling is a vicious employment.

It has contracted a high reputation for Minnesota, and invited among us a large and desirable class of immigrants.

To finish up Minnesota, the following letter is submitted:

EDITOR OF THE JOURNAL:

ST. ANTHONY, June 22, 1854.

We are still without a prohibitory law, and consequently are suffering considerably from the ravages of intemperance. Our Legislature, when in session last winter, came very near doing its duty, though with so ill a grace as to entitle it to few thanks. A fair majority of its members were elected as Maine law men, and a bill compiled from the laws of Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont, quite as thorough as either, was passed in the House, and probably would have passed the Council had not a most rascally proceeding prevented it. A member from St. Paul moved to refer the bill, as it came from the House, to a Select Committee. An enemy thus became chairman of the Committee. When the bill was called up for action it was nowhere to be found! Of course nobody can assert that the Hon. Councillor destroyed it, but it can be asserted that whoever did do it, deserved a place in the Penitentiary, rather than in a civilized Legislature.

If the professed friends of the law had done their duty, a bill like the lost one would immediately have been brought forward; but they contented themselves with passing a stringent license law, which is, however, so difficult of execution that it is worse than useless, as it serves as a sort of conscience-plaster for many nominal temperance men.

Our Council (corresponding to a Senate in the States) is elected for two years; and it may be that our hopes will therefore be deferred till an entirely new Legislature can be chosen-but the future will avenge us. Our territory is being settled more rapidly than ever before, and the character of the settlers is such as to warrant a belief that they will add more strength to our cause than to the opposition. C. GORDON AMES, Cor. Sec. Ter. Temp. Soc.

In haste,

P.S.-I forgot to say that our Legislature did pass a more

than Maine law for a large part of the Territory. The Sioux Purchase (a tract of land west of the Mississippi, and as large as the State of Ohio) was relinquished by the Indians in 1852; and one condition of the treaty was that the U. S. Intercourse Laws should still be in force there. Those laws forbid the introduction fiquor, the building of distilleries, etc., under the severest penalties. Our Legislature has, in substance, enacted the same provisions as a Territorial Statute. So that between Uncle Sam and the authorities of Minnesota, the man who carries ardent spirits into that section stands rather a narrow chance.

MICHIGAN.

C. G. A.

In his Message to the Legislature of Michigan, Governor Bingham speaks as follows in regard to the Anti-Liquor Law in that State:

"An act was passed by our immediate predecessors, and approved on the 12th of February, 1853, prohibiting the manufacture of intoxicating beverages, and the traffic therein.' The 18th section of the act provided for its submission to the electors for their approval or disapproval at a special election provided for that purpose on the third Monday in June, subsequent to the passage of the bill. If approved by the electors, the 20th section provided that the act should take effect on the first day of December thereafter. The result of the election showed that the large majority of about twenty thousand of the voters of the State. were in favor of the law. So strong and unanimous was the expression of its approval, that the manufacturers and dealers in intoxicating drinks very generally made such disposition of their effects, and such arrangements in their business, as to submit, like good citizens, to the clearly expressed will of the majority, and allow the act to go quietly and peaceably into operation. A few, however, persisted, in violation of the law, in the sale of intoxicating drinks, and their prosecution for the recovery of the penalties imposed brought the question of its constitutionality before the Supreme Court for their decision. It is understood that the members of that body were equally divided upon that question, four of them sustaining the constitutionality of the law, while four of them believed that some of its clauses

were unconstitutional. The unfortunate disagreement between the members of that high tribunal, has practically nullified the law, and no effort has since been made to enforce its provisions. The sale of intoxicating drinks has therefore gone on, as unrestrained as formerly-and the hopes of those who had relied upon this measure as an efficient aid in mitigating the wide-spread social evils-the domestic misery the wretched pauperism - the shocking crimes, and the increased intoxication which are caused by intemperance, and which are the sure results flowing from it, have been totally disappointed. It is confidently believed that a large majority of the most respectable and intelligent portion of community are still in favor of the passage and enforcement of a 'prohibitory law,' and that they regard such a measure as the only shield which will protect society against the terrible calamities which the unfortunate vice of intemperance occasions. I therefore recommend such legislative action on your part as will avoid constitutional objections, and adoption of such other provisions as your wisdom may suggest, to enable this beneficent measure to go into full effect.'

The Legislature to whom this message was addressed have just passed an act entitled "An Act to prevent the Manufacture and Sale of Spirituous and Intoxicating Liquors as a Beverage." It will take effect on the fourteenth day of the present month, (May, 1855.)

Great care was taken in framing the act, and it is believed to be constitutional, and that it will be "generally acquiesced in and enforced."*

PENNSYLVANIA.

The following is the new law which has passed the Legislature of Pennsylvania, and been signed by Governor POLLOCK. It is entitled "An Act to Restrain the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors."

SEC. 1. Be it enacted, etc., That from and after the first day of October next, 1855, it shall be unlawful to keep or maintain any house, room, or place where vinous, spiritu* See Appendix.