and parts of charters inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed. But no suit commenced, or indictment found, before this act takes effect, shall in any manner be affected thereby.

SEC. XXV. No license to sell liquor, except as herein provided, shall hereafter be granted. All liquor kept in violation of any provision or provisions of this act, shall be deemed and is hereby declared to be a public nuisance.

SEC. XXVI. The second section of this act shall take effect on the first day of May next; section twenty-five shall take effect immediately, and all parts thereof on the fourth day of July next.

STATE OF NEW-YORK, I have compared the preceding with the origiSecretary's Office. nal law on file in this office, and do hereby certify that the same is a correct transcript therefrom and of the whole of said original law.

Given under my hand and seal of office, at the city of Albany, [L. S.] this eleventh day of April, in the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty-five.

E. W. LEAVENWORTH, Secretary of State.

1

A SKETCH

OF THE

MAINE LAW IN NEW-YORK STATE.

An electric shock would scarcely have produced a greater sensation upon a nation than did the enactment of the "Maine Law," by the Legislature of the State of Maine, upon the people of the United States.

Little sooner had that law been approved by the Governor, (which took place June 2d, 1851,) than the agitation of the subject of the passage of a similar law was commenced in several other States. The Maine Law immediately became the theme of discussion at public gatherings generally, and many resolutions were adopted which were strong in its approval.

At the National Temperance Convention; held at Saratoga Springs, August 20, 1851, where were assembled 300 delegates from nineteen States and Provinces, it was unanimously

"Resolved, That the principle assumed and carried out in the Maine Law, that spirituous and intoxicating liquors kept for sale, as a beverage, should be destroyed by the State, as a public evil, meets the approbation of the Convention, as consonant with the destruction of the imple

ments of gambling and counterfeiting, of poisonous food, infectious hides, and weapons of war in the hands of an enemy; that if the liquor destroyed is private property, it is only so as are the implements of the counterfeiter, dangerous and deadly to the best interests of the community; that its destruction is no waste of the bounties of Providence, more than the destruction of noxious weeds, while its very destruction enriches the State, exceeding the amount for which it could have been sold. It tends to put an end to all subterfuges, frauds and secret sales, and to the demand for it in the community. It makes the State a perfect asylum for the inebriate. It is a solemn manifestation to the world of the vile and worthless nature of the article destroyed, and an unmistakable token to the vender of the end to which a righteous public sentiment will ultimately bring his business. For these and other reasons, the Convention give it their hearty approbation; and they do strongly recommend to all the friends of Temperance, to cherish it as the sure, and the only sure triumph of their cause, and continually to urge its adoption upon every Legislature."

At a meeting of the Synod of Geneva, composed of ninety clergymen, representing ten Presbyteries, it

was

"Resolved, That we commend to the Legislature of the State, the adoption of the principles now in process of application in the State of Maine; namely, that WHEREAS the State has recognized her right to destroy the implements of the gambler and counterfeiter, it is equally her duty to seize and destroy all intoxicating liquors that are for sale, as a beverage, these being the implements of the rumseller in his work of death."

But as it was little expected that such a law would be passed in the State of New-York, those who were or would be opposed to it were less active in its opposition, though by no means heedless of the movements of its advocates. To the enactment of such a law, the election of a favorable Legislature was considered by the prohibitionists to be of first import

ance. Accordingly, they bent their efforts mainly to the attainment of this object. The result was that the first New-York Maine Law Legislature convened at Albany, Jan. 1, 1854. A prohibitory bill was soon reported in this Legislature, and passed March 24, by a vote of 18 to 10 in the Senate, and 87 to 27 in the Assembly. The bill, however, was vetoed by Governor Seymour, March 31, the veto being based on the three following positions:

"1. That portions of the bill were at variance with the Bill of Rights, and unconstitutional.

"2. That its tendencies were all oppressive, vexatious, and mischievous, and its penalties altogether unequal; and,

"3. That a system of entire prohibition would prove injurious and destructive, rather than beneficial, to the cause of temperance."

On the occasion of this veto it is difficult to determine which party was the more vociferous, the one in its indignation, or the other in its approval.

At the following election, the leading point at issue was prohibition or anti-prohibition; and as Gov. Seymour had, by his late veto, shown himself true to the interests of the one party, and as Myron H. Clark had, by his presentation and advocacy of the same bill in the Senate, shown himself favorable to the other, the two were made opposing candidates for the office of Governor. The result was the defeat of Governor Seymour and the election of Mr. Clark by about 400 majority. This election not only gave the prohibitionists their Governor, but also a large majority in both branches of the Legislature. Scarcely were the two houses organized ere notice was given by a member of each that he would, at an early day, introduce "a bill for the prevention of intemperance, pauperism, and crime." However, on the 16th of Jan., 1855, the majority and minority of

the Select Committee on the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors, transmitted to the Legislature reports, to gether with a bill. The bill reported by the majority was then taken up in the Assembly in committee of the whole, and discussed at great length. The entire discussion would fill an octavo volume; we can therefore merely give the pith of the arguments.* Mr. LOURIE, in favor of the bill, said:

It has been inquired how any man who has sworn to support the Constitution can support this law. Men differ in opinion in regard to the character of a law. Every man is his own judge. If it is constitutional to prohibit one man from engaging in the traffic, it is constitutional to prohibit all. If it is constitutional to prohibit the farmers and mechanics of the State-who bear its chief burdens-from selling intoxicating drinks, why is it not constitutional to prohibit others from engaging in the traffic? If it is constitutional to prohibit its sale to a minor, why not to prohibit its sale to all? If it is constitutional, as some propose, to prohibit its sale to women, why may not its sale to men be prohibited also?

Mr. RHODES avowed himself in favor of a prohibitory law, but not of this bill. It was offensive and impracticable-creating an improper and offensive monopoly, first by confining the traffic to a few men, and then permitting them to charge what they please for what they thus have the monopoly of. He did not, however, object to this monopoly, so far as it was confined to suppressing the sale of the article as a beverage; but it should not be allowed to apply, in its monopoly features, to its sale for mechanical and medicinal purposes.

Mr. MUNDY'S experience was this: he had run down a temperance Whig (a most excellent man) and a temperance "Hindoo," because his constituents desired a representative who would vote against any such law as this. He deemed the law unconstitutional; and, while he was in favor of temperance as much as any man, he could not seek to promote that cause by any such offensive law as this. Men could not be made sober by force. You may lead a horse to water,

* Clipped principally from the State Paper.