mmm® Wa m m m BflaffioeT 8 MW '.': :'i-< ; ;'■ ' ' ■',' 1 ', ' ( \ ] ■ ', BiHi H98 HB11I1 Sia^ffi™i^^'rai^ll'''llN^i Maso 1 3i 1839 ■AM UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES SCHOOL OF LAW LIBRARY INVESTIGATION INTO THE FIFTEEN GALLON LAW OF MASSACHUSETTS, BEFORE A JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE LEGISLATURE WHICH BEGAN JAN. 39 AND CLOSED FEB. 30, 1839, UPON TH1 MEMORIAL OF HARRISON GRAY OTIS AND OTHERS FOR THE REPEAL OF THE LAW: WITH THE ARGUMENTS OF FRANKLIN DEXTER & B. F. HALLETT, As Counsel in support of the Memorial. 7*"*- PUBLISHED BY DIRECTION OF THE COMMITTEE FOR THE MEMORIALISTS. BOSTON : PRINTED BY J. H. BUCKINGHAM, OFFICE OF THE NEW-ENGLAND GALAXY. 1839. s INTRODUCTION. It was not the original intention of the Committee who had charge of he Memorial of Harrison Gray Otis, Thomas H. Perkins, John barker, Thomas Dennie, Nathaniel Goddard and forty-eight hundred others inhabitants of Boston ; to present to the public a detail of the proceedings before the Committee of the Legislature to whom that subject was referred; but the repeated misrepresentations made of the views ol the Memorialists by those who in this unhappy division in society,— created by a busy few, the most intolerant and the least dis- creet,— have sunk the original benevolent purposes of this moral .re orm into a mere partizan struggle for a triumph in the experiment of cstaohshing an inquisition over the consciences and appetites of their ellow-c.tizens, by aid of an obnoxious law; seem to render it a pub- lic duty to the present, as well as to future generations, to embody in a permanent form, the grounds of the objections to the law and the incontestible facts which were substantiated in the investigation. It becomes the more important to discharge this duty because this great question is still open before the public for their further action, in consequence of the failure of the Legislature to repeal or modify the law at the last session, although repeated votes in both branches demon- fnrl th f ^ WaS a d f \ ded ma J° rit ^ a S ainst k ' in its P rese "t form, and that it was not repealed solely because this majority, at the close N S ?° n ; an " the dlF6rS ^ ° f °P inions > caused h y a S^ "um- ber of different projects, were unable to agree upon a substitute. It is also important, that while so much is published in support of the law, the r e ason S against it should be equally accessible to an in- quiring pub he. The opponents of this law object to it on the highest fundamental principles of the Constitution ; viewing it as reaching much deeper than a temperance reform ; and as, in fact, an entering wldge, a, plausible pretext for an experiment upon popular forbearance, to°tert 686431 how far fanaticism and bigotry can go in getting the sanctions of law in tnis State to enforce particular creeds, and in reviving the long ex- ploded dogma of persecution for opinion's sake, by virtue of pains and penalties. They wish, therefore, to have their views fairly presented, and not distorted through the medium of prejudice and intolerance, which the advocates of the law attempt to place before the eyes of the people, whenever they are called on to look at this subject. These views will be found in the following pages, as stated in the Memorial, and in the arguments and evidence by which it was sustained before the Commit- tee. To these positions, deliberately taken, and which will be firmly and perseveringly sustained, is now asked the candid attention of that enlightened and liberal portion of the people who have not lost their clearness of perception by looking at a single object through the nar- row orifice of sectarianism and party spirit, until they can see nothing else ; nor have learnt to regard the professed end in view as a sufficient justification of any means, however arbitrary and inexpedient, that may be resorted to by heated partizans, to sustain it : forgetting that tem- perance in legislation, temperance in the social relations, temperance in language and opinions, temperance in moral reform, and temperance in the enforcement of favorite theories, with becoming charity toward all who differ in opinion from the promulgators of new creeds and doc- trines in meats and drinks as well as morals and religion, are quite as emphatically enjoined upon all good citizens as is that temperance which they suppose can be enforced only by a legally enjoined abstinence, under pains and penalties, from the temperate use of a par- ticular beverage. In a word, the opponents of this law, as will be seen by a candid examination of the grounds taken before the Com- mittee, oppose coercion as applied to voluntary morals, in every form ; and their arguments against law temperance, are precisely the same in principle as have been urged in this Commonwealth, from the per- secution of Roger Williams to the present time, against law religion. The flippant retort of the temperance zealots, which is their most ready and efficient argument, that the opponents of this law want rum lib- erty, is just as sound, and no sounder, as was the like argument of the persecuting bigots who prayed for laws to hang Quakers and banish Anabaptists, that the opponents of those detestable laws wanted athe- istical liberty. We want, that Liberty wherewith God and the Consti- tution have made us free, and he who surrenders it at the call of fanati- cism, in a single point, be it in meat or drink, mind or matter, body or soul, is recreant to the principles and faith of those who won it, and is prepared to surrender the whole, whenever the tyranny of despotism or the intolerance of bigotry demands the sacrifice. Boston, August 1839. INVESTIGATION INTO THE FIFTEEN GALLON LAW OF MASSACHUSETTS. The law against which the Memorialists protested, was passed the 19th of April, 1838, and is as follows: An Act to regulate the sale of Spirituous Liquors. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives, in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows : Sec. 1. No licensed innholder, retailer, common victualler, or other person, except as herein after provided, shall sell any brandy, rum, or other spirituous liquors, or any mixed liquor, part of which is spirituous, in a less quantity than fifteen gallons, and that delivered and carried away all at one time, on pain of forfeiting not more than twenty dollars, nor less than ten dollars, for each offence, to be recovered in the man- ner and for the use provided in the twenty-sixth section of the forty-seventh chapter of the Revised Statutes. Sec. 2. The Count)' Commissioners in the several counties, may license for their respective towns, as many apothecaries or practising physicians as they deem neces- sary, to be retailers of spirituous liquors, to be used in the arts, or for medicinal pur- poses only ; and the mayor and aldermen of the several cities may, in like manner, and for like purpose, license apothecaries, as retailers for their respective cities; and the Court of Commen Pleas in the County of Suffolk, in like manner, and for like purposes, may license apothecaries or practising physicians, as retailers in the town of Chelsea ; which licenses shall be granted in the same manner, and under the same restrictions now provided by law for licensing retailers: Provided, That the number of persons so licensed shall not exceed one for every two thousand inhabitants, and in towns containing less than two thousand inhabitants, one person maybe licensed: And provided, further, That in such cities and towns where there is no apothecary, or practising physician, such other person or persons may be appointed as aforesaid, as may be deemed proper by said County Commissioners; and no person, so licensed, shall sell any spirituous liquor to be drunk in or about his premises, on pain of the for- feiture provided in the first section of this Act. Sec. 3. All licenses hereafter granted to innholders, retailers and common victual- lers, shall be so framed as not to authorize the licensed persons ta sell brandy, rum, or any other spirituous liquors ; and no excise or fee shall be required for such a license. Sec 4. The provisions of all laws now in force, inconsistent with this Act, are hereby repealed. Sec. 5. This Act shall take effect on the first day of July next, but shall have operation upon any licenses granted previous to that time. [Approved by the Governor, April 19, 1838.] MEMORIAL To the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled : When a law has been enacted involving a new and dangerous principle in legisla- tion, unequal in its operation, at best of extremely doubtful constitutional right, infffi- cTent in promoting its professed end, and tending to endanger a good moral cause, by exciting opposition and stirring up division as to the means for promoting that cause, in communities where all good citizecs were desirous to have a thorough leform in habit, and appetite effected by moral persuasion ; it becomes the duty, as well as right of the people to ask of their public agents, the repeal of such law. For these general reasons, the undersigned respectfully ask for the repeal of the law passed at the^last session, entitled " An Act to regulate the sale of Ardent Spirits." The title of that Act, we submit, is a misnomer, for instead of regulating, as all acts on this subject have hitherto assumed to do, it entirely prohibits, in any form or under any circumstances, to be used except in the arts or for medicine, the sale of any liquid, " part of which is spirituous," unless sold to the extent of fifteen gallons, to be all delivered and carried away at one time The question is not whether this law, if enforced, might or might not promote tem- perance, but whether in its application to a particular description of property and to the free agency of the citizen, it does not contravene all" sound principles applicable to the possession, use, and enjoyment of property as a whole, and the exercise of plain personal and domestic rights that lie at the foundation of free Government. It is not a question merely affecting morals, but the highest constitutional guarantees of prop- erty and individual liberty. We ask for the repeal of that law, on these grounds, for the following summary of reasons : Because it assumes to prescribe the particular uses to which properly lawfully acquired shall be put; prohibiting a use lawful in itself ; — thus following the article when sold to the home and the closet of the citizen who buys, and instituting a new system of espionage upon his domestic acts. Because the paramount laws of Congress authorize the importation of this article of rnarchandize and its incorporation into the mass of property, all of which is under a regulation of -commerce, which power is wholly ceded to the United States by the States, and therefore no State can prevent such importation and incorporation into the mass of property. Because when so incorporated it becomes like all other merchandize or chattels law- fully acquired, a part of that property which the Constitution of this State secures to every citizen, and guarantees to him " the right of acquiring, possessing and pro- tecting," and in the " enjoyment" of which property, like all other, the Constitution says "each individual has a right to be protected by Society." Because, to proscribe by a State law, any particular description of merchandize which under the United States Constitution becomes the lawful property of a citizen of this State, and withhold from it the right of " enjoyment" secured to all property, on the ground that excess in the use of it is injurious to Society ; is as manifestly an evasion of the guarantee of property rights, as it would be to deny the constitutional protec- tion to jewels, plate, equipage, or any article of luxury, the excessive use of which, or its use at all by the poor, tends to demoralize and impoverish a community. Because when the Constitution of this State and of the United States were adopted, the chattel now deprived of the most essential quality of property by this law. was fully recognized as possessing all the immunities attaching to other property ; and hence it being the subject of lawful property under the supreme law of the land, for a State to deprive it of value by denying to it sale and transfer, is an act of Nullification of the laws of Congress, rendering the right of importation useless by destroying the right to sell. Because, by thus singling out and virtually confiscating one species of property which one portion of Society believe it is unsafe for another portion to hold, except in large quantities, an arbitrary and despotic precedent will be established, by which the 6acred right of acquiring, possessing and enjoying property, may be narrowed down to the mere will of a majority of the Legislature for the time being, as to the kinds and quantities of property the;,' may think it safe to let the citizens enjoy. Because the arguments in support of this law, drawn from the legal suppression of gambling, lewdness, lottery tickets and drunkenness, are not applicable to a law which prohibits the sale from any and all citizens to others, of a specific chattel or property, Sported and incorporated into the mass of property under the sanction of the para- -^^nt laws of the land. Because it assumes that the sale of a particular article of property lawfully acquired and held, is a crime, and then only punishes the alleged offence when little, but legal- izes it in large quantities, thus contravening the plainest principle of right, by punish- ing crime in the inverse ratio of quantity. Because this law in effect confiscates property lawfully acquired, in the hands of the purchaser from the importer, and aunuls the importation laws. Hence if a State can- not directly prevent an article being imported and sold to its citizens in the first in- stance, would it not be unworthy a Legislature to adopt any evasive or cunning device to effect indirectly what the constitutional compact and the public faith due to the National Laws, prohibit being done directly. Because, so long as lire supreme law attaches to this article the right of being law- fully acquired, there can be no just distinction made as to the enjoyment and use of this right, beyond its abuse and the mere regulations of police, which does not apply to all other property in the hands of the citizen. Because, if the Constitution of the United States does not prevent a State from pass- ing any law, however arbitrary, for regulating its internal commerce between citizens, the Constitution of the State protects the citizen in the enjoyment of all lawfully acquired property, and to abolish the sale of it, is in effect a law of confiscation, be- cause the value of property depends on what it will bring, and to abolish its transfer, abolishes its value. Because it is no answer to this objection to say that the transfer of this property is abolished only in given quantities, but allowed, unrestrained, in larger quantities; which is only saying that if a citizen is able to acquire a great deal of property, he shall be protected in the enjoyment of its use and sale, but if he is able to acquire only a Tittle property, he shall be punished for selling it to another, and also tire individual who sold it to him. Because the Constitution in securing the right to keep and bear arms, does not more directly involve the right to purchase, and sell such arms, subject only to proper police regulations, than does the provision that each citizen shall be protected in the enjoy- ment of property, lawfully acquired, involve tire right of purchase and sale. Hence if the sale of lawfully acquired property may be forbidden to prevent its tendency to abuse in bad hands, may not the Legislature, should the Non Resistance Societies de- mand it, prohibit the sale of fire arms, in small quantities, lest they should be used ill self defence. Because this law makes another innovation upon settled principles governing the rights of property, in prescribing for what particular purposes of domestic and private use, property shall be sold, or shall not be sold. It says that any quantity of the pro- scribed property may be sold provided it is to be used in arts or medicine — that none shall be sold under a given quantity, to be used for any other purpose ; but that it may Be sold, to any extent and for any use, over a given quantity at a time. We ask for the repeal of this law, then, as a dangerous precedent affecting the rights of property. We ask for that repeal, further — Because it is a departure in principle from the ui'iform course of legislation upon this subject, under the Constitution, which has been to regulate and not to prohibit; former laws being founded on a matter of police, to govern places of resort, preserve order ( and punish actual violations of law. Because it is a false principle in penal enactments to punish an act, not criminal in itself, on the ground that it tends to crime in another, while at the same time the law freely furnishes this tendency to crime in large quantities, and only prohibits it in smaller. Because the law is founded on another position as false as it is unjust, viz: that the moral sense is not as strong in the poor as in the rich, and that the former cannot without restraining laws, resist temptations that may be safely presented to the latter, without injury to the common good ; thus assuming the odious distinction that the Legislature must take care of the poor, by guarding them against temptation, whiie the rich may be safely left to take care of themselves. Because it is a libel on humanity to assume that the poor must be restrained in appe- tite and the rich indulged, when in fact it is the industrious classes with small means, who are trained by circumstances to self-denial and abstinence; while the rich are more exposed, from habit and means, to excess in indulgence. Because it is a sumptuary law against appetite, always odious in any form, but espe- cially so in this case, where, instead of restraining the luxury of the wealthy, it is aim- ed exclusively against the appetite of the poor, and freely indulges that of the rich ; thus infringing the spirit of that provision which declares that the Constitution was expressly framed " to provide for an equitable mode of making laws." Because voluntary principle is the only safe reliance in a free government, for the support of religion and the advancement of moral causes; and the professed object of this impossible law, viz: the suppression of appetite in a particular class, is as muc u beyond the reach of penal laws, as are the conscience and the internal will of man. 8 Becaust it is a law against moral agency, imposing punishment not upon anj crime or offence, but upon an indulgence in appetite that may lead to crime. Because the argument that Society has a right to prevent pauperism through intem- perance its greatest source, no more justifies this law, than it would a law to punish any citizen who should keep or use the article at home— and, moreover, this argument is a libel on a majority of the people, in assuming that the pauperism which is engen- dered by intemperance, is confined to those who cannot purchase fifteen gallons at a time, while the higher classes, who indulge at their tables and sideboards, are in no danger of becoming a public charge. Because this law is an alarming precedent, tending to revive that series of arbitrary, bigoted and outrageous restraints upon personal freedom, domestic rights and private opinions, known as the Blue-Laws of the old Colonies ; and on this principle, when- ever any sect in morals or diatectics happen to get a majority in the Legislature, they may pass laws to prohibit and punish all the indulgences they think proper to condemn. Because there is obviously a dangerous tendency in the times to intemperate excess, in carrying out benevolent and noble objects of reform, which threatens to drive the sober and prudent and reflecting from all such useful associations— wherefore v.e con- ceive it is peculiarly the duty of the Legislature not to countenance a doubtful and vexed measure of reform having this tendency, and which, if persisted in, will encour- age those who run into the wildest theories of moral restraint, to get up combinations and parties to force their particular creeds into the form of law. For these, among numerous other reasons, v.e address ourselves to the calm good sense of the Representatives of the people. We pray them, as friends of temperance, not to endanger the healthful moral influences that were carrying forward that cause as rapidly as the condition of society would admit. We ask them not to forget that thouo-h temperance is a noble cause, Liberty and Equal laws are nobler. We assure them that this law must fail of its professed object, and will not succeed in restraining appetite which will be indulged by combinations and evasions to a greater extent than without this ineffectual attempt at restraint. We ask them not to compel those who have uniformly sustained the moral cause of temperance and still desire its success, to rally against this measure in defence of a higher principle than temperance itself, the liberty of the citizen. Very many of the devoted, practical friends of temperance, solemnly hold this law to be a violation of fundamental principles. They deny its right, they doubt its constitutionality, they are satisfied of its inexpediency, and that it will react, and retard the cause rather than advance it. They cannot consent to do wrong that good may possibly come. They will rather wait for moral causes to operate, than force the end they wish to accom- plish, at the expense of reaction and the soundest and plainest principles of Equal Rights. Wherefore we pray the Legislature to repeal this law, and thus remove from the Statute Book, the first act of a Sumptuary law, which has been placed there since the adoption of the Constitution. MR. HALLETT'S OPENING ARGUMENT, B. F. Hallett opened the inquiry on the part of the Memorialists. His purpose was to present the reasons and facts on which the repeal of the law of 1838, prohibiting the retail sale of spirituous liquors, was asked for in the Memorial, and his wish was to confine the investigation strictly to the matter in hand, viz. whether the law in question ought to be repealed or not. We disclaim the issue of Temperance and Intemperance. It would dis- credit the intelligence of the Legislature to treat this subject as if they de- sired to be instructed through a committee as to the blessings of temper- ance or the evils of intemperance. The question is not the evil, but the remedy : whether this law is a remedy for the evils that are connected with ntemperance in society, and whether it is such a law as ought to be enact- ed under any circumstances. I am aware that the attempt will be made ^ the other side, to represent the opponents of this law as the opponents 9 of Temperance, and thus, by making a false issue, preoccupy the favorable opinion of the Committee. In the outset therefore, I protest against this assumption ; and so far as the evils of intemperance are concerned, the sup- porters of the law may if they choose, take our general cognovit, and thus relieve the Committee from the wide range of inquiry which that mode of treating the subject would lead to. The Memorial asks for the repeal of the Law on the very ground, among other objections to it, that it is adverse to temperance, and endangers the progress of a good moral cause. On this point we shall have much to say, and many facts to present. The question is simply whether so long as the laws sanction the importa- tion, acquisition and use, of this species of property ; a moral act of self-de- nial, lutal abstinence from the use of spirituous liquors, shall be attempted to be enforced by a law of prohibition and penalty, or be left to moral influ- ences under general laws of regulation. The object of all former laws on this subject has been to promote temperance, by regulating the sale to all : the aim of this law is to enforce total abstinence in a part, by prohibiting the sale to one class and allowing it to another. The friends of the law claim an authority for its enactment under the in- junctions in the State Constitution. To show that this claim has no foun- dation in the Constitution, it is only necessary to refer to the plain distinc- tion between temperance and total abstinence ; the one meaning a moder- ate use of an article of appetite or luxury, and the other an entire abstinence from such use. Temperance, when applied to any act or indulgence, im- plies that the virtue of temperance consists not in the absolute denial, but in the moderate use. It cannot therefore be applied to any indulgence, wrong in itself. We do not say that men should be temperate in gambling, vice, or crime ; but that they should abstain altogether, because any partic- ipation, however moderate, is criminal. Consequently, by temperance, our fathers meant a moderate use of the luxuries of life, and as the Constitution must be interpreted by the manifest intent of those who framed it, it is plain that they never could have intended to enforce total abstinence from any description of food or drink, under the denomination of Temperance. This word which is used but once in the Constitution, is as applicable to eating as drinking, and it might with equal propriety be urged that the Constitu- tion enjoins upon the Legislature to make laws to enforce total abstinence from all kinds of food not indispensible to life, as that it authorizes such laws in relation to drinks. The State Constitution speaks of temperance but no where of total absti- nence. The law in question is designed to enforce the latter, upon a partic- ular class, who have not the means to get over it; and if the Constitution is to be appealed to for its sanction it must be shown that by virtue of the Con- stitution the enforcement of total abstinence by law comes within the prov- ince of the Legislature. As the Constitution is so often referred to, and by a disingenuous per- version of this word Temperance from its true meaning, wrested into a seeming sanction of any law, however arbitrary, to prohibit the moderate use or sale of alcohol, it is proper to set this part of the inquiry to rest in the outset. The State Constitution on Temperance. The only use made of this word in the Constitution is the following. "Art. 18. A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the f Constitution, and a constant adherence to those of piety, justice, modera- ' tion, temperance and frugality, are absolutely necessary to preserve- the advantages of liberty, and to maintain a free government. The peof* 5 / 10 have a right to require of their lawgivers and Magistrates an exact arid constant observance of them in the formation and execution of the laws." If this sanctions a prohibitory law against beverage or food, the "constant observance" of it enjoined, would require that total abstinence should be regarded in forming all the laws. This is sufficient to show that the Tan- perance here referred to is a quality ; a virtue the opposite to excess in all things. With as much propriety might we argue that because the Consti- tution enjoins a constant adherence to frugality, therefore the Legislature ought to pass laws restraining the expenses of living, and prohibiting the sale of all unnecessary articles in housekeeping, to save people from the tempta- tion of running in debt, getting insolvent and committing suicide. As well might we argue from this article that the moderation and Justice it en- joins in the making of laws, render it the duty of the Legislature to repeal a law so immoderate and unjust as the prohibitory law under consideration. As well might we say that we ought to have an established religion by law, because the observance of piety is enjoined. The " fundamental principle" of equality, is the first principle to be referred to in making- laws; and this principle the law of '38 violates. How then can the ISth article support it? Another part of the Constitution relied on by the advocates of the law, is the 4th .Article of the 1st Chapter in which "full power is given to make, ordain and establish all wholesome and reasonable orders, laws, statutes and ordinances, necessary for the good administration of the Commonwealth." If this is to be construed without limit, it sets up a claim of irresponsible power in the Legislature, and abrogates the Constitution itself. If other- wise, it is begging the question to assume that this is a wholesome and reas- onable law. It must not only be shown to be wholesome and reasonable, but to be "necessary for the good administration of the Commonwealth." — To be reasonable, it must be equal in its operation on all classes of citi- zens. The 2d Section, Chap. 5, has also been pressed into the service of this law, which says, — "It shall be the duty of Legislators and Magistrates to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevo- lence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punc- tuality in dealings, sincerity, good humor, and all social affections and gen- erous sentiments among the people." The argument attempted to be drawn from this is, that because intemper- ance is adverse to the principles here recommended, therefore the Legisla- ture must pass laws to enforce total abstinence. As well might it be argu- ed that because wine is said to make men generous, good humoured and social, therefore the Legislature ought to encourage its convivial use. But to place this matter beyond dispute, we have a contemporaneous ex- position of the intent and meaning of the founders of the Constitution, which is the soundest and safest rule of construction, as to delegated power. The Convention that framed the Constitution of Massachusetts assembled in 1779. Two years before that, in 1777, the General Court of Massachusetts composed of many of the same individuals who were members of the Con- vention in '79, passed a law to the following effect, which may be found in the first Vol. Resolves of Massachusetts Bay for February 1777, p. 33. "Resolve to prevent the exportation of rum and other articles out of this State, as well by land as water, passed Feb. 7, 1777. "Whereas, the Rum, &c. now in this State are all needed for the supply of the army and the inhabitants of this Stale, It is therefore resolved that all exportation of Rum, Molasses, Sugar, Cotton Wool, Sheepswool, flax, salt, coffee, cocoa, chocolate, linen, cotton and linen, woollen and cotton goods of all kinds, provisions of all and every sort shoes, hides, deer skins, sheep skins, and Leather of all kinds, as well by land as by wa- ter, from every port of the State, be stopped except to the different ports of 'this State. And if any vessel shall be found having any quantity of rum, more than fit) callons 1 11 im a vessel of 80 tons, for a three months voyage, and in that proportion for a Itirger or smaller vessel and on a longer or shorter voyage, being 'outward bound or found at sea. having sailed from any port in this State for any part of the world without this State ; such vessel shall be a lawful prize for any person who shall take the same ; and shall be condemned and sold in the manner provided for sale of vessels taken in carrying supplies to the enemy. And if the Committee of Correspondence, Instruction and Safety, of any towns in this State shall suspect that any team is loaded with such article to be transported out of the State, said Committee are empowered and directed to stop all such teams till they can make proper inquiry, and to seize and file an information against the same, as forfeited, one half to the Committee and the other half to the State. Provided this resolve shall not prevent the carrying of the article from this to any neighbouring State, as purchased at ordinary retail, either for the consumption of indi- viduals or single families. And it is hereby recommended to the good people of this State to afford all possible aid to the Committees aforesaid to enable them to carry these resolves into effectual execution." Resolved, that if it appear any article has been transported contrary to this Resolve, the owner shall forfeit the value, to be recovered by action of debt. Mr. Hosmer is directed to procure 2000 copies to be printed, and cause the same to be printed in the Boston Newspapers." Jn Council, March 2G, 1777, it was voted, Whereas, it is of great importance that there should be ample supply of rum, suo-ar, molasses, cocoa, coffee, cotton, wool and salt, for the use of the army, and every imped- iment to their importation ought immediately to be removed, therefore Resolved, that Benjamin Greenleaf, Thomas Cushing and John Taylor, be a committee, f?wnc could be sold." * Judge Story adds, (as his own opinion,) that " the result of the whole reasoning is.', that whatever restrains or prevents the introduction or impor- tation oi' goods into the country, authorised or allowed by Congress, whether in the shape of a tax or other charge, or whether before or after their arrival in port, interferes with the exclusive right of Congress to regulate eommerce." Chief Justice Marshall, in giving the opinion of the Court in Brown's case, also says :■ — " It is obvious that the same power which imposes a light duty, can impose a very heavy one ; one which amounts to prohibition. If it may be exercised at all, (by a State,) it must be exercised at the will of those in whose hands it is placed. If the tax may be levied in this form by a State, it may be levied to an extent which will defeat the revenue by impost, so far as it is draicnfrom importation into the particular States." Apply the whole of this reasoning against the prohibitory power of the States, to this law of 1838. What is the design of that law ? To restrain importation by restraining sale. To prevent the introduction of alcohol into this State, though it is one of the essential articles of commerce on which the United States relies for revenue — to defeat the United States revenue, so far as it is drawn from importation of alcohol into this State ! Chief Justice Marshall says, if a State can impose a light duty on imposts, it can a heavy one, amounting to prohibition. Therefore it shall impose no duty whatever. For the same reason, if it can prohibit the sale of an article of import under a given quantity, however small, it can pro- hibit the sale of the article in any quantity, however large. If a State can prohibit the sale of an article (say Chief Justice Marshall and Judge Story, * A most extraordinary perversion of this decision was made by one of the counsel in favor of the Law, before the Committee. He contended that it conceded the power to the States to prohibit sale, and by consequence importation, when it expressly denies such a power in a State. m with the whole Court,) it can prohibit its introduction into the country and thus defeat the revenue by impost in that Stale. If one State has the power, all have it ; and all can shut up their mar- kets to an article allowed to be imported by the laws of the United States. If this can be done as to one article, it can be done as to all ; and thus the States have the power to destroy all revenue derived from importations. [In 1838, the whole amount, in value, of all articles imported into the United States, was $113,717,404. Of this sum, .$60,860,005 in value, were articles free of duty, leaving $52,857,399 in value, of articles imported on which duties were charged for purposes of revenue. The value of ardent spirits and wines imported in 1838, was *3, 795, 190 ; viz. 1,476,908 gallons of spirits, and 2,318,282 gallons of wine ; which is 13, 92-100, being a fraction less than a fourteenth part of the whole revenue of the United States. So that if the States have the power, inde- pendent of Congress, to destroy importation' of intoxicating liquors by pro- hibiting the sale in their territories, they have the power of abolishing a fourteenth part of the public revenue, thus leaving Congress at the mercy of the States, in providing the sources of public revenue to meet the public expenses. Can this be constitutional? Can such a power as this be con- sistent with the power over revenue ceded to the United States ? Carry it out, for if it exists in little it exists unlimited. Massachusetts, for instance, may wish to prevent importation of alcohol, wine, tobacco, opium, and all sorts of stimulants to intoxication or luxury, on account of morals; and of all articles which she manufactures, on account of domestic industry. South Carolina may wish to prohibit the manufactures of Massachusetts on account of her objections to the Tariff. The Northern States may conclude to prohibit cotton, rice, and tobacco, because they are raised by slaves ; and the Southern and Western States may wish to shut out all the fabrics, shoes, and products of the free States, unless they will put down Abolition Societies.] If this fifteen gallon law be constitutional, where is the restraint? All these prohibitions of commerce between the states can be enforced by pro- hibiting the sale of the articles between citizens of the respective etates, and thus the great purpose of the Constitution and the Union, revenue and uniform commerce, is at an end. The only question that can be raised to evade the foregoing conclusions is, whether a State can do indirectly what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly, — that is, whether, altholigh it has not the power to prevent or restrain importation of an article, or destroy the revenue the United States derives from it, by prohibiting the sale from the importer to his pur- chaser, it can do the same thing by prohibiting the sale from that purchaser to any other buyer? If a state can do this, it can effectually destroy the importation of any article so prohibited, and deprive the government of the market for the sale of that article, from the sale of which alGne is derived revenue, by inducing importation. Certain it is, that if the states have this power, as a branch of the regu- lation of their internal commerce, they can, by state laws, prohibiting sale between their citizens and in their respective territories, nullify the impor- tation laws, and cut off all sources of the public revenue. To say that the laws of the United States are not infringed by permitting the importer to sell, while the state law prohibits the citizens from buying the article of each other, is to affirm that the prohibition of the traffic between citizens does_ not interfere with or restrain importation, and does not-diminish the revenue that would otherwise be derived from such importation. Now, as it is obvious that the prohibition to sell between citizens ramt have this effect, and as that is its avowed object, and only possible beuGftt. 28 it must follow that a law of prohibition is directly repugnant to the exclu- sive power given to Congress to regulate importations into the states, and to raise a revenue fiom such importations by their sale in the markets of the states. Distinction bctioccn the old and new law in this respect. This makes a plain distinction between the former license laws of this state, which merely direct and regulate the mode of selling by citizens of the state, without restriction as to quantity, and the existing law, which positively prohibits the sale in less quantities than fifteen gallons ; because such a prohibition cannot be enforced without diminishing importation and revenue, by diminishing consumption and sale in the market of the State. This doctrine is fully admitted in the case of the Commonwealth vs. Kimball, decided by the Supreme Court of this State, under the former law of 1832. The Court says, that in the exercise of the powers reserved to the states, " they have the right and power to resort to all adequate and appropriate means, for carrying these powers into effect, unless they shall happen, in any particular instance, to come directly in conflict with the operation of some law of the United States, made in pursuance of its enu- merated powers." The only question at issue in this case of Kimball, was whether the law of 1832, requiring a license for the retail of spirituous liquors, was repug- nant to the laws of the United States, authorising the importation of the article, and raising a revenue thereon. The Court decided that "the power to regulate licensed houses, and to provide for the regulation of the sale of spirituous liquors, is an acknowledged power of the state government. It is not to be presumed that the Constitution was intended to inhibit or restrain the exercise of so useful and necessary a power, unless it shall so appear by plain words or necessary implication. The burden is upon those who would set up and enforce the restraint, to establish it by showing that the Constitution, by particular provisions, or in the accomplishment of its general purposes, necessarily interferes with it." And the Court adds, •" that the objects to be accomplished by State regulation, are to be reached and effected by any appropriate means, which do not interfere with the exercise of any of the poioers vested in the General Government." These powers are ; to provide for the importation of any article of commerce into a State, and to rarse a revenue from such importation. These are the "general purposes" of the Constitution in this particular ; and they depend entirely upon the right to use the market of the State for the sale of the imported article. The law of 1832 did not necessarily interfere with these powers or pur- poses, nor was it designed in its operation or effect, to diminish importation or revenue. It encouraged and promoted the traffic between citizens. But the law of 1838 does nothing but prohibit and discourage sale. It regulates nothing, for its whole jurisdiction is confined to less than fifteen gallons, and the sale of this it directly inhibits. If carried into effect it must diminish importation directly, by abolishing demand and supply. It is palpable therefore, that the power of Congress to raise a public revenue from this source, is to be materially affected by the intended operation of this law, should it be enforced. "I cannot admit, (says Judge Story, in the case of New York rs. Milne) that the States have authority to enact laws which trench upon the authority of Congress in its power to regulate commerce." — It is no answer to say that the States will have too much wisdom and prudence to exercise the authority to an injurious extent. Laws were actually passed by New "Sork, New Jersey, and Connecticut, during the Steam Boat controversy, which threatened the safety and security of the Union, and demon- 29 strate the necessity that the power to regulate commerce among the Slates, should be exclusively in the Union, in order to prevent the most injurious restraints upon it."* Must it not be conceded, then, either thai this law does infringe upon the importation and revenue laws of Congress, or that the public revenue of the Union is entirely at the mercy of the States, which may annihilate it whenever they choose to cut off importation by prohibiting sale between their citizens and in their respective territories? Such are the views I take of the repugnance of this law to the Con- stitution, treaties, and laws of the United States. I must say, that I regard them as deserving much graver considerations than they seem to have received in this excited controversy. This Law violates the State Constitution. A state law may be constitutional as respects the United States Consti- tution, and yet be a violation of the Constitution of the State, which is the supreme law in the Commonwealth, that legislators, judges, jurors, and citizens, are bound to obey in preference to any enactment by the General Court. The fundamental principles of the State Constitution which this law violates, are, 1st , the unalienable right of acquiring and possessing property. Art.l. 2d. The right each individual of the Society has to be protected by it in the enjoyment of property according to standing laics. Art. 10. The guarantie that no part of the property of an individual can be jnstly taken from him without compensation. 3d. The covenant of the social compact, "that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good ;" and "the duty of the people in framing a Constitution, is to provide for an equitable mode of making laws." Pre- amble. 4th. A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the Con- stitution, and a constant adherence to those of justice.. Art. 18. 5th. That no association of men have any title to obtain exclusive advantages distinct from those of the community than what arises from services rendered to the public. That government is instituted for the common good, and not for the profit or private interest of any class of men. [This last objection applies to the employment of Physicians as an exclusive class or profession, who are to have the profit of the trafic taken from the retailer and transferred to them.] Effect on property rights, as to acquisition. We have seen that alcohol is property, under the supreme laws of the land, (the acts of Congress and the United States Constitution,) as much as tea, coffee, clothes, or any article of merchandize. There is no power in the State to prevent its being mixed up and incor- porated with all other property a citizen has a right to acquire. This is the condition of the cession made to Congress by all the States. It being property subject to acquisition, and beyond the prohibition of State laws, the State cannot pass a law that one class of men may acquire and possess it, and another class shall not. The State may regulate the means of acquiring property, but it must leave every citizen free to acquire it in greater or less quantities, according to his means. "This refers to the leading case of Gibbons ?;s. Ogden & Wheaten, which overthrew the Steam Boat monopoly in New York. Those who cite the private opinion of Chancellor Kent in favor of the United States Constitutionality of the fifteen gallon law, would do well to remember that Mr. Kent also gave his opinion in favor of the Steam Bo_e.t monopoly, but was overruled by the Supreme Court. 30 But this law says that those who can acquire fifteen gallons or fifteen dollars worth of this property, at one time, may do it; while it says that those who cannot acquire that amount, shall not acquire any, unless through a violation of law. Where is the difference between this and a law which should prohibit a citizen from acquiring less than fifteen dollars worth of food or clothing at one time ? Would such a law be just and equal? Effects as to enjoyment of Property. Property is also .to be enjoyed according to standing laws. These laws make no distinction as to any class of men enjoying a large amount of property, while another class who have little, are not to be allowed to enjoy that little. Standing laws for two hundred years have protected the enjoyment of this property in any quantity men chose to possess it. Until now it could always be bought and sold, in any quantity, for any use. There can be no legal enjoyment of property without the right to buy and sell. But this right is taken away from a certain quantity of this property, such as the man of moderate means can acquire, and yet the larger quantity of the same property, which the rich can acquire, is left as free to his enjoyment as is all other property under standing laws. This is as open and manifest a violation of the Constitution as it would be to prevent a farmer from selling over one bushel of rye at a time, under pretence of stopping distillation. The Constitution declares that no part of property shall be taken away from any individual, without compensation. This law confiscates one seventh part of the property in this article, by declaring that the part under fifteen shall not be sold, acquired, or enjoyed; and it deprives all who can- not obtain over a seventh part, from lawfully obtaining any ! Where is the difference between this and a law depriving men of acquiring less than the seventh part of a dollar, or of one hundred dollars, — or of one hundred acres of land? Of what avail are standing laws in regard to property, if the Legislature can, at will, make such restrictions as this to limit its use, acquisition and enjoyment ? And as all property comes under the same standing laws, where is the power given in the Constitution to single out this property from others ; and proscribe it, or any part of it ? The Legislature is only an agent, with the Constitution for its power of Attorney, to act for the people. If it cannot show the express or fairly implied grant of this power, the exercise of it is open usurpation. Where is such a power given or implied in the Constitution ? Effects on Equality of Laics and Rights. Again: — The whole object and design of the Constitution was to insure the making of equitable laws, and a constant adherence to the principles of justice is enjoined. The object of this law is to make it very difficult, if not impossible, for men of small means to get ardent spirits lawfully. It thus divides society horizontally, according to property or credit, and denies the first broad principle of equitable laws, that every man shall have his money's worth. Why should your fifteen dollars be able lawfully to buy fifteen measures of property, while my dollar cannot lawfully buy one, although the seller is as ready to sell one to me as fifteen to you? No sophistry can make this a just or equitable provision in any law, and no other law in existence has any such provision in it. The broadest and largest principle in property rights, which covers every thing in our institutions is this — that every man, high or low, rich or poor, shall have the equal right to acquire, possess and enjoy liis money's worth of all lawful property that is susceptible of divisibility, to the minimum extent ihc seller chooses to divide it 31 This principle the act of 1838 directly violates, while no other act in the statute book infringes it. Surely then, this is a new and dangerous prin- ciple in legislation. When such is the design and effect of a law, got up under great profes- sions of philanthropy, it is wise for the people and for their Legislature to ponder well the maxim of Washington, in his Farewell Address: — "Resist with care the spirit of innovation upon the principles of your government, however specious the pretexts." This principle may be traced back to the earliest foundation of govern- ment in this State. Governor Winthrop's definition of true liberty, was this, in 1GG0: — "Civil, moral, and federal liberty, consists in every man enjoying his property, and having the equal benefit of the lav.s of his country." Does the man whose limited means prevent his buying fifteen gallons at a time, without great inconvenience, or who does not want to use so much in a year, have the equal benefit of this law with the man of large means, who can buy that quantity without inconvenience? To this equal enjoyment according to means, in every individual, and this equal benefit of laws, whether of prohibition or privilege, the Act of 1838 is utterly repugnant. If then the Bill of Rights be any thing but a rhetorical flourish, this act is palpably a violation of the Constitution, and can never be regarded by the citizens as a law of the land. The question of Expediency and Enforcement. We now come to the matter of expediency, and the practical enforce- ment of this act. All the argument tends to this point. The act was not necessary to keep society together. There was no palpable outrage on society demanding it, and it was no certain remedy for the evils of intemperance. It is therefore inexpedient unless the public mind is so fully prepared for it, as to readily settle down into a general acquiescence. Every doubt that attaches to its expediency, constitu- tionality or fairness, will operate directly against its enforcement ; and if not enforced, it will be worse than no law on the subject. It is inexpedient, because it presses a moral cause beyond the rule of good government. That rule is well laid down to consist in this : " To find the maximum of voluntary influence and the minimum of legal coer- cion, — and to do nothing by law that can be done by opinion, or custom, or morals, or religion." All that goes beyond this in attempting to enforce moral restraints, constitutes a force law, and this is what we mean by calling this act a force laio. It is inexpedient, because, before it was passed, there was a general acquiescence in the temperance reform, and even in the laws, (objection- able as some of them were,) passed to aid that reform ; but this act will embody resistance by extreme pressure, and drive men to an investigation of the principles of these laws of restraint upon lawful opinions and appe- tites, which may endanger the whole, and carry you back far beyond the point you started from. A law that cannot be enforced will amount to universal license. The common sense of common justice will revolt at such a law, and juries wil not, perhaps, be found to agree upon verdicts under it. The constit 32 tionality of this law will be argued to them, and they have the right to determine the law as well as the fact, in each case. Laws all depend on public opinion; especially so when designed to enforce a moral reform. Public opinion, which was doinc all that could be hoped for, in this reform, will react under the pressure of this law of prohibition ; to what extent remains to be seen, but inevitably to the extent of rendering this law nugatory. Public opinion will sustain all proper and necessary restraints of whole- some regulation, applied to places and occupations, and not to property and classes. But it will resist prohibition, and in that struggle it may break down the whole barrier which custom and moral influence have raised against habits of dangerous indulgence. For these consequences those who shall press this bad law, if they retain it, will be morally responsible. The law is inexpedient, because it was not called for by the necessities of the temperance reform. It is the few who want excitement, and who cannot wait for the good seed sown to spring up and bear fruit — it is they, and not the cause, that have demanded this experiment, and therefore it must fail. The only proper use of penal laws is to apply punishment and sometimes prevention, to overt acts, wrong in themselves. This law is designed to prohibit the temperate use in all of the comparatively poorer classes, because some, may use it. intemperately. It cannot hold good in law or morals that all men shall be denied a right, because some may use it wrongfully. It is lawful to drink. Shall all men».be denied this right because some may drink too much ? Why cut off" my hand, because my neighbor may imbrue his hand in blood 1 It is in the nature of a law against freedom of opinion, — for what is total abstinence but the result of opinion? Good citizens differ as to the neces- sity of total abstinence. It is therefore a conflict of creeds, and systems of living. Your law comes in. in aid of one creed and one system against the other. What is this but a revival of the old doctrine of wholesome persecution, to convert men to particular creeds and notions by force of penal laws, after argument and moral suasion have failed ? It is a violation of the original Temperance Constitution and pledge. Those who began the Temperance reform repudiated all resort to force laws. Such were the terms of the original enlistment in this good cause, and the attempt to pervert it to purposes of legal persecution, is a departure from the original Constitution, and absolves from further union or coopera- tion with Temperance Societies, all who do not mean to become perse- cutors, and who disclaim invoking the strong arm of the law to punish men for not thinking as they do. The Constitution of -the American Temperance Society, which first promulgated the great moral remedy of total abstinence, and which remains unchanged to this day, utterly repudiates all force laws. This will be seen by an examination of the articles of association. The preamble says : " Whereas the various measures which the friends of Christian morality have adopted, though not altogether unsuccessful, have been found quite insufficient to give any effectual and permanent check to this desolating evil ; and whereas some more vigorous means are evidently required, — therefore the friends of domestic and social happiness, wishing to do all in their power to promote the welfare of their fellow men, resolve to form a Society" &c. And what were these " more vigorous means"? Not pains and penal- ties, but, (says the preamble,) " Some eystem of instruction and action which will make a steady and powerful 33 impression on the present and following generations, and in this way, ultimately effect a change of public sentiment and practice in regard to the use of intoxicating liquor, and thus put an end to that wide spreading intemperance, which has already caused such desolation in every part of our country." Not an allusion to force laws, fines or imprisonment. It was to be a system of instruction, not of prosecution ; — a change was to be made in public sentiment by appeals to understanding and feeling, — not by pimps, spies, and informers ! A change was to be made in regard to the voluntary use, not whips and scorpions, fines and bolts, fire and fagot to be applied to the dealer in the article. His customers were to be taken from him by moral suasion and the change in fashion and habit, not by indictment ; for when public sen- timent abolished the use, the sale, which was the consequence, not the cause of the use, would disappear with it ! The only qualification of membership, was to abstain from the use of intoxicating liquor, and the following are all the duties enjoined in the Sth article, upon the officers and agents of this society, in carrying forward the work, viz. : "To make appropriate communications, by pamphlets, correspondence, and personal interviews, to ministers of the gospel, to physicians, and others, and to consult and co-operate with them for the purpose of guarding those under their influence against the evils of intemperance ; to take pains, in all proper methods, to make a seasonable and salutary impression, in relation to this subject, on those who are favored with a public and refined education, and are destined in various ways to have a leading influ- ence in society ; to make it a serious object to introduce into the publications of the dny, essays and addresses on the subject (*f intoxicating liquor, and to induce teacheis. and those concerned in the support of schools, to labor diligently to impress the minds of the young with the alarming and dreadful evils to which all are exposed who in- dulge themselves in the use- of strong- drink : to mike affectionate and earnest adz- dresses to Christian churches, to parents and guardians, to children, apprentices, and servants, and all other descriptions of persons, and to set clearly before them the effect of spirituous liquor on health, on reputation, and on all the temporal and eternal inte- rests of men, and to urge them, by the most weighty arguments, drawn from the present and the future world, to keep themselves at a distance from this insidious and destructive foe; to do whatever is practicable and expedient towards the forming of voluntary associations for the purpose of promoting the ends of this Society ; and, in general, to labor, by all suitable means, and in reliance upon the divine blessing, to fix the eyes of persons of both sexes, and of all ages and conditions, on the magnitude of the evil which this Society aims to prevent, 3tid on the immeasurable good which it aims to secure ; and to produce such a change of public sentiment, and such a renova- tion of the habits of individuals, and the customs of the community, that, in the end,. temperance, with all its attendant blessings, may universally prevail." Here " thr divine blessing,'' and not " the strong arm of the law," is invoked, as the sole reliance in promoting the cause. This was the original purpose and pledge of the Temperance reform ; and Mr. Chairman, as one of its earliest adherents and disciples, lit- erally a pioneer in the work, and holding as I still do, the relation of membership to some five Temperance Associations, of two of which I drew the Constitutions and made the firstreports in 1827 ; I here charge the mov- ers of this law temperance, which is now to be enforced by pains and penal- ties, with a gross departure from the original principles of the institution. I hold them as guilty, (in a moral point of view,) of perverting the true fiiith of temperance A and becoming persecutors, as were the bigots in rp'igion, who. changed the mild influences and the long suffering of early Christianity, into the rack, the gibbet, and the fagot. 34 With such persecuting and furiously proselyting temperance, I disclaim all association, as I would with such religion. It has taken the sword, and it will perish by the sword. Thus do we find this obnoxious law, not only violating the Constitutions of the United States and the State, but the Temperance Constitution itself. And, are free men or temperance men, to be called on to support such a law ? This law, and the means taken to enforce it, are a perversion of the original temperance reform, in another important respect. The design never was to reach the drunkard or the tippler. The constitution of the society says : M It is to be adopted as a principle, that while we are to make use, perseveringly, of all fit and promising means for the reformation of those who have already, in different degrees, contracted habits of intemperance, — the utility of the institution must chiefly consist in guarding against danger, those who are yet uncontaminaled by this loath some and fatal vice." But what say those who press this law upon us? Why, that they are wearied in well doing; that they have convinced all who they think are fit to be reasoned with, and that a class of men are left who are too obsti- nate to be convinced, and they must have law to put them down and send them to prison. This law, then, is designed expressly to persecute and punish the incor- rigible, or those who will not be convinced ; and therefore it is a direct violation of the mild doctrines upon which the temperance reform, like pure Christianity, was placed by its founders, e'er charity and meekness had been changed to ferocity and despotism by the ambition of a few ruthless .eaders, and the lust of party power. No liberal man who started in the original temperance reform, before it became degraded into a persecuting, political party, can fail to perceive the great change in all the movements of Temperance Societies. This change has morally absolved him from an association with persecutors and proscrib- es. He cannot go into their meetings now, as he once did, and hear tem- perance discussed. It is all law and the lash. Moral and social influences are almost scouted there, as mean and spiritless, and the cry is, "give us the law, give us the power, down with our opponents; murderers, thieves, robbers! crucify them, crucify them ! !" Instead of going into the social circle to protect from the habit by moral influence, those who have not fully acquired it, this law assumes to operate on those whose appetites cannot be restrained without enforcement of penal enactments. It aims at those of supposed fixed habits ; it leaves the highest and richest, who are generally supposed to set the fashions, to indulge freely in their choice wines and their fifteen gallons of strong proof; while it attempts to hedge round the poor man, and to 35 cut him oft" from hia little indulgence, because he has not the means to buy larger and drink deeper. Can such a law commend itself to the common understanding and the common conscience, as a law which those who exempt themselves from it, really passed for the common good ? Temperance has been injured by force Laws. The cause succeeded better on its original moral basis, than it has since done by attempting to bring in the aid of force laws, contrary to its own constitution. Moral influences began to operate generally in 1828 — 29. Force laws began to be applied and felt in 1832 — 33. Contrast the two periods of five years each, under moral and legal appliances. TABLE No. 1. Schedule of Imports and Exports of Foreign Ardent Spirits in the United States, from 1829 to 1833, inclusive.* Years. Imported. Exported. Home Consumption. 1899 3,4-23,1 DO 735, 0U 2,688,000 1830 1,692,000 706,000 986,000 1831 2,491,000 639,000 1,852,000 1832 2,810,000 662,000 2,1 '8,000 1833 2,954.000 728,0 2,226,000 Total 5 years. 13,370,000 ,470,000 9,0 0,000 Imports and Exports of the United States from 1834 to 1839. Years. imported. Exported Home » onsumptioii. 1834 2,511,000 511 000 2,0 0,000 1835 3,394,000 310,000 3,084,000 183G 3,524, 00 272,000 3,252,000 1837 2,672,000 299,000 2,373,000 1838 3,092,000 232,000 2,860,000 Total 5 years, 15,193,00U 1,624,000 13,509,000 13,310,000 3,470,0,0 9,900,000 lncie:.se of tlie last 1,823,000 1,846,000 3,669,000 5 years. Decrease of Exports. * This statement is made, not from the Temperance tracts, but from returns certified by the Treasury Department at Washington, and politely transmitted to Mr. H. by the Secretary of that Department. The hundreds aie omitted as unimportant, and to avoid unnecessary figuies. It appears, from this comparison, that the average consumption of foreign spirituous liquors in each year, for five years, from 1829 to 1883, when moral suasion and " the divine blessing" were relied on, was 1,980,000 gallons. For the five subsequent years, when the effects began to be felt of calling in "the strong arm of the law," the average consumption of each year has been 2,713,S00 gallons; shewing an average increase in each year during the last five, of 833,800 gallons. The decrease under moral suasion, between 1829 and 1833, was 442, COO gallons. The increase between 1834 and 1838, under force laws, is 800, (iCO gallons. Net difference against the latter period, 1,276,000 gallons. 36 The average annual decrease from 1829 to 1833, was 92,000 gallons. The average annual increase from 1S33 to 1839, has been 172,000 gallons. Difference against the latter period annually, 20-1,000 gallons. Imports into Boston. This unfavorable result for the cause of temperance is shewn still more decisively in the State of Massachusetts, where law Temperance was first started in 1831 — 2, and hs.s been pushed farther than in all the other States in the Union. TABLE No. 2. Importations of Spirits and Wines into Boston, and Exports of Spirits (foreign) from 1829 inclusive, to 1839, (10 years.) Year Branny Rum Gin Total Spirits Exported Ko reign Home Cons'mp tion Wine Tmpoit'd J olal Wines & Spirits Do- mestic Exp'ld J 829 | 85,750 | 319,790 92 -:t)0 | 497,940 181,964 315,980 466,500 | 954,440 1 1830 21,100 2t>5,810 78,160 | 364,i(70 1 18,829 215,241 2 0,680 | 644,750 | 4,503 1831 60,600 348.820 104,510 | 508,930 150,626 304 511 : | 1,020,290 | 26,035 1832 ' 9i,840 222,810 165,468 | 480,110 186,151 293.959 887,850 1,361 | 2,545 1833 1-9,030 135,690 127, 70 | 391,7 9.) 173,304 4 8,486 620,840 | 1.012,630 | 47,530 1834 ..8,550 117,600 73,810 | 279,960 98,65 i 181,304 557,790 | 837,750 | 230,948 1835 121,730 156,420 120,850 j 401,7 35,712 365,988 . 4.-9,650 | 89 ,350 234,^11 1836 156,420 190,180 177,350 | 523,950 41,696 482,254 737,94 i | l,-61,8Sy | ' 11,109- 1837 72,360 8 vi-0 116,460 j 2^8,14 > 22,452 | 255. its 397, n(>0 | 675.! 4n I 64,814 1838 98,650 133,27,) 2 5,4 .0 | 437,320 16, 44 | 421,276 374 8(1 | 811,4011 1 1 '5,169 Taking Five Yt iars, fro m 1829 inclusiv z to 1834. Frm 1829 M»>34 Brandy Rum Gin 1 Total Spirits Exported Foreign Home Cons'mp tion Wine Import'd i otal Wines & Spirits Do- mestic Exp'td Frm 1834 to '39 3^8,320 l.,2xj 92 1 5u7,tiJ0 j x, 242,84 J 810,871 1,431,970 2,767 230 5,000 670 Tut'l 51 >,7i0 | 6*0,79 i 603,870 || 1,921,070 | *14,56il 1 706,51(i 1 2556,460 4 477,530 | 426,143 Increase of Brandy, 191,39 ) Decrease of Rum, 605,131 Increase of Gin, 126,270 Decrease of Spirits, 321,770 Decrease of Exports, 596,31 I Increase Consumption, 274,540 jifl crease ) •of Domestic > 101,085 Exported, ) Wine average the first 5 years, per year, do. do. second 5 years, - Average Consumption of Spirits tlie last 3 years, Aveiage Consumption the seven preceding years, Decrease of Wines Imported Decrease of Wines and Spirits Imported Deducting fm. decrease of Exports, Leaves increased Con- ; sumption of Wines j and Ardent Spirits, ! 210,770 5C-2,549 596,314 73,774 gallons. Spiiits. \ Average Consumption \ 286,394 tlie firs"t5yrs. to 1834, ) Average Con sum p. j per year the last 5 > 341,3(2 years, to 1839, ) Difference in the av- ) ,j Qra e age of the two £ 0,1 > 9U ° periods. } rr.3,446 511,292 3S6,4 n 6 gallons. 282,752 " Showing in favor of 7 former years, e;:di year, ------- Average Consumption of two last yeais, -------- Still siiowing a greater average than 8 preceding years, by - - - - - Increased Importation of Spiiits into Boston in 1838 over 1837, .... Diminished Import of Wines during same time, ------- Increase of Importation of Spiiits in 838, over the average of 1836, '37, and '38, Import of 1838, -- ------ Difference in 1838, Increased Consumption of 183S, over t lie average Consumption of 1836, '37, and '38, Increased Consumption of Spirits in 1838 over 1837, ------ 103,654 gallons. 33)s,482 " 30,790 gallons. 159,181 22,920 4 3,137 437,320 24,183 gall, ns. 34 ,870 do. 165,588 do. Boston furnishes rather less than one twenty-eighth part of the whole revenue of the United States, and yet in 1838 one-third of the increased imports of spirits in the whole Union, was made at the port of Beaton! 37 A startling fact this, that where the laws have been severest, importation has been largest. BC3BM TABLE No. 3. Comparison of Imports and Exports of Spirits in Boston beticeen two periods of five years, — from 1829 to 1834, and from 1831 to 1839. Five years,— from 1829 to 1834. Imported. | Exported. | Consumption. || Domestic Spirits exported ironi 1831 to l«3o. 27242^8 W i 810,874 | l743l797rj~ fj 235,- '58 ~ Five years,— from 1834 to 1839^ Imported. | Exported. | Consumption. |j Domestic Spirits exported fro h 1835 to 1»39 1,921,1.70 j 214,560 j 1,7U6,510 [j 42u',143 " Showing increased Consumption the last 5 years, ---___- 274,540 gallons. Increased Export of Domestic Spirit- the last 4 years, in two periods of 8 years, - lul,. 85 do. Averaae Consumption of Foreign Spirit.-; for the first period of five years, per year, 886,394 Be Average Consumption of the last five years, --.---___ 341,308 do. Increased Average, ------ ^- - ... . 54,908 Average Consumption the last three years, ------ 386,406 Average of the seven preceding } ears, ------- ■_ 750 In favor of the 7 first year-', --------- 103,054 Average Consumption of two last years, ------ 338 Average of the eight preceding years, ------ 3 .'7,690 Increased averace of the two last years, ------ 3 ,792 Increased Consumption of 1638 over 1637, ----..-. 155,588 galls. The whole increase of 1838, in the United States, is 497,000 galls., one third of which is in Boston, alone 1 ' Another singular fact in these statistics is, that while the consumption of alcohol in the form of rum, brandy, and gin, has increased, its use in the form of wine, has diminished. The wines consumed in the United States, in 1837, were 5,992,000 gallons. In 1838, 4,047,000 gallons. Decrease, 1,945,000 gallons. The wines imported into Boston in 1837, were 397,000 gallons. In 1838, 374,000 gallons. Less, 23,000 gallons. And yet all* the force laws have been applied exclusively to ardent spirit?, which have increased under them, while wine, that has been left without restraint, has diminished, under moral suasion. Had the restraints been applied to wine and not to spirits, the reverse would unquestionably have appeared. Such are the laws of human nature. Increased Sales in Boston. "We are prepared to shew further, the unfavorable influence of force laws upon Temperance, by the increased sales from Distillers and large dealers, since this law was first agitated. We shall offer direoi proof of this fact, and shall also shew that the sales have been very large, and equal to, if not greater, than in former years, by the dealers in Boston, for consumption and 38 sale in the counties where for three or four years past the Commissioner* have withheld all licenses. The fact of the increased sale under prohi- bition, is well understood by the large dealers in this merchandize, and can be demonstrated by an examination of their books. In the midst of the senseless and unchristian vituperation cast upon this portion of our fellow citizens, by the temperance persecutors of better men than themselves, it is but just to recur to this evidence of their fairness and their disposition to do right. It wili be understood better hereafter, should this law not be repealed. But let it now be stated and remembered, that so far as profit is con- cerned, the dealers are directly interested in keeping up this law. It will put money into their pockets. It will increase the consumption, increase the demand, increase the sale, and increase the profit. It has had this effect already, and will continue to have this effect with increasing force, the longer it is persisted in. I respect these citizens for the evidence they thus give of a desire to reform the law, though it will be at a loss of profit, rather than avail themselves as they might, of a bad law, to increase their profits. The immoral tendtncy of the Law. This brings us to consider the influence of such a law on morals and the public justice. It will be evaded in all possible forms, where it cannot be openly disregarded. It gives a free license to wine shops, which are now restrained, and under the name of wine, all things can be sold. "Tell me where wine ends and brandy begins," was the shrewd re- mark of a dealer who was asked what he should do if this law was not repealed. It will induce malicious prosecutions on one side, revenge and violence on the other, and perjury in your Courts on both. It will engender bigotry in the prosecutions, and hypocrisy in those who will indulge their appetites secretly, while openly pretending to go for the law. It has excited, and will continue to excite, angry feelings and bitter collisions, destructive of good neighborhood and the social affections. Your criminal Courts will be filled, not only with prosecutions for violations of this Act, but for the breaches of peace, slanders, libels, and personal assaults, that will grow out of the vain attempts to enforce it. In a word, instead of a law of prohibition, or of regulation even, it will become iu effect, a law of universal license. The Expense of Enforcing such a Law. lias the cost been counted? There will be great resistance to so unreasonable a law, and the costs of criminal prosecutions of all kinds, growing out of it, will greatly enhance the public expenses in the adminis- tration of justice, which already costs $31,000 annually, in this Com- monwealth. Who will pay this additional expense ? Will the getters up and sup- porters of this law? At present it must fall upon the State, already obliged to borrow to meet the excess of her current expenses, over the annual income.* The Governor, in his annual Address, alludes to the increase of County balances, as among the causes of increased expendi- * To escape from this unpopular effect of the law, the Legislature subsequently threw the County balances upon the Counties, and took the fines for the General Treasury. But who pays ? Is it any saving to pay a State tax by calling it a County tax ? Will a citizen of Boston, for instance, find it cheaper to pay County balances ae a Suffolk man, than he would as a Massachusetts man ? 39 lures. In 1832, these balances were 828,626. In 1838, tliey were 868,680, showing an increase of $40,000.- Much of this grows out of prosecutions under force temperance laws. The increased expenses between 1836 and 1S38, have been larger in the prohibitory than in the licensing Counties. The angry feelings this laio engenders. These are to be taken into the account where a new and unheard of law is made, under the y pretence of improving the moral condition of the people, and promoting the social affections. This law will not only prove to be the mother of hypocrisy in those who enforce and those who evade it, but it will engender angry and vindictive feelings. It singles out for proscription and punishment, a respectable class of citizens, whose business has been sanctioned by the laws for two hundred years. Assertions like these are made in reference to such men, by one of your honorable Senators, who voted for this law.* "They ought to be charged in account annually, for one half the pauperism, one half the insanity, one half the conflagrations, one half the suicides, thefts, murders, and rapes of society." Epithets like the following are heaped upon these citizens by the news- paper organ of the supporters of this law, which daily grossly and openly violates the law of libel, (if there be such a law,) while exclaiming with horror against other violators of law ! [Epithets from the Mercantile Journal.} " Whig liquor dealers, whose inclination to deal in rum is more than a match for their patriotism ; petty, little faction ; dictators of the parly ; playing a deep game ; preconcert, mancenvering, and fraud ; selfish and private ends ; secresy of some eastern despotism; tainted with fraud, treachery, usurpation, proscription, and favoritism > proscriptionists ; Rum Whigs, and Rum-sellers ; striped pig liquor dealers !" Harsh epithets have led to harsh laws. This law was preceded by a systematic attempt to create a new moral offence in society. Professedly christian men publicly branded their fellow citizens who were as free from crime or evil intent as themselves, with robbery and murder. I deprecate in Christian ministers, whose moral influence would else be as salutary in this cause as their learning is eminent, remarks like these, calculated to stir up worse passions than intemperance itself engenders. — " I challenge any man, who understands the nature of ardent spirits, and yet con- tinues to be engaged in the traffic, to show that he is not involved in the guilt of murder." — Lyman Beechf.r. " No man can act on Christian principles, or do a patriot's duty to his country, and make or sell the instruments of intoxication." — Henry Ware. "The evils of intemperance can never cease until the virtuous in society shall unite in pronouncing the man who attempts to accumulate wealth by dealing out poison and death to his neighbor, as infamous." — John Fierpont.* In contrast with these unchristian denunciations, I love to hear opinions *Hon. S. G. Goodrich, of Norfolk. "And yet, strangely inconsistent as it must seem, these estimable and reverend gentlemen have been for years, and still are, supported in their parishes, to a very considerable extent, by the men they pronounce traitors, murderers, and infamous ! Are they not, by their own showing, content to receive from these men the price of blood ? 40 ]\kc. this, from wise and eminent men in the land. It will do more good than volumes of abuse, or a whole code of force laws : — " Beinrr satisfied from observation and experience, as well as from medical testimony, that ardent spirit, as a drink, is not only needless, but hurtful ; and that the entire disuse of it would tend to promote the health, the virtue, and happiness of the com- munity, we hereby express our conviction, that would the citizens of the United States, and especially all youvg men, discontinue the use of it, they would not only uromote their own personal benefit, but the good of their country and the world. 1 Signed, JAMKS MADISON, ANDREW JACKSON, JOHN QU1NCY ADAMS." Does public opinion demand this Law ? This is not a mere question of majorities. To make such a change as this in legislation, affecting voluntary morals, and not the immediate exigencies of society, the demand of public opinion should be open, mani- fest, unquestionable, and to a degree, unanimous. The sudden passage of this law in 1S33, was a surprise upon the public. Jt was the result of external pressure upon the Legislature, by self constituted societies, and of an ex-parte hearing before an ex-parte committee. No law ever raised a more decided opposition, from the moment of its passage. It has kept the community in a broil ever since. What has been the popular expres- sion as indicated by the return of members this year? (1839.) Elections of twenty-three Senators by the people have been prevented, solely by opposition to this law, in six out of fourteen counties, namely, Suffolk, Worcester, Middlesex, Norfolk, Hampden, and Franklin, leaving but seventeen chosen by the people. In the Senate of 1838, twenty-four Senators voted for the law, and nine against it. Of the twenty-four who voted for the law, nineteen were can- didates for re-election. Ten were chosen, and nine were defeated. Of the nine Senators who voted against the law, five were candidates; three were chosen, and two defeated. The popular vote, as far as it can be estimated, from the known opinions of the candidates, without regard to party, gave the following results : — In Suffolk, the majority against the law was 5099. In Worcester, the opponents of the law threw an average of 638 more votes than its friends. In Franklin, the majority over the candidate who would not declare against the law, was G43. Here is a majority of 8049 in three counties, which all the other counties cannot balance on the other side. In Hampden, the candidates supported on open ground of opposition to the law, combining both parties, had 3805 votes, to 2(516 for advocates of the'law. Difference 1189. Mr. Boise, who voted for the law, was in a minority of 416. Mr. Ives, who opposed the law, in a minority of 204. An entire liberal ticket prevented an election. In Norfolk, three candidates who had voted for the law, were defeated. The two candidates having the highest votes, were against the law. The scattering for the liberal ticket would have elected them. In Bristol, one who voted for the law was beaten. Those chosen were not supporters of the law, and one, (Mr. Whitmarsh) had published his opposition to it, and his determination to vote against it, if elected. In Middlesex, one who had voted for the law was elected. One for it, and one against it, rejected. Of the three having the highest vole, two were against the law and one for it. Hampshire was equally divided, one for the law and one against it. But Mr. Clark, who had voted against the law, had 275 more votes on the same ticket, than Mr. Lawrence, a champion of the law, and President of the Senate. Berkshire, Essex, Plymouth, Barnstable, and Nantucket, re-eiected sup- porters of the law. The popular will, as shown in the canvass for Senators, gave the prefer- ..., 2 "Worcester, 6----»-- = .-0 Essex, Q.-.......^§ Hampshire, 1^-.. ....... \ franklin, 1 Hampden, 8 » Berkshire, .-... = ----2 Norfolk, 2 -..-... 1 Plymouth, --••....... <2 Bristol, 2--. ....... ^ Barnstable, ...... ^ .... %_ Nantucket, ......... . . % 23 17 In the House, but a very small portion of those who voted for the law were sustained by the people in 1839; — not one in three, as is seen by the following table. Number of members in the several Counties , who voted on the Law o/"1838 s and were re-elected in 1839. Yeas Re-elected 1 JNavs 1 He-elected in 1838. in 1839. in 1838. in 1839. ■Suffolk, 36 3 28 5 35ssex, 36 17 7 3 Middlesex, 30 4 38 9 Worcester, 30 4 22 11 Hampshire 15 6 2 1 Hampden, 8 6 Franklin, 8 2 8 5 Berkskirej S 1 5 1 Norfolk, ID 10 7 4 Bristol, 19 8 3 1 Plymouth, 20 30 Barnstable, 18 30 Dukes & Nantucket, 5 2 1 229 77 106 . 33 This unusual change in the members has taken place, so that although ihe great object of the supporters of the law was to prevent its repeal in 1839, they have nevertheless returned but srvcvty-seven of the original advocates of the law ; thus clearly indicating that the unpopularity of that measure has obliged the friends of the law to take new candidates, whs were not known to be pledged to uphold the law. Neither was there a full expression of the representatives in passing the law at the close of the session of 183S. It was in fact passed by a minority of the House, and was almost the last Act of the session. The whole number of members belonging to the House, in 1838, was 478, requiring 240 for a majority. But 229 voted for the law, which is eleven less thaE a majority. It was therefore passed by a minority of the House! Of the whole number of members in the respective Counties, there were wanting majorities for the law, viz. — in Suffolk, 25 less than a majority? Worcester, 9; Hampden, 8; Franklin, 4; Berkshire, 19; Bristol, .2, 42 Total, 67. The Counties where majorities of the members voted for the law, were, Essex, 13; Middlesex, 2; Hampshire, 9; Norfolk, 5; Ply- mouth, 7; Barnstable, 12; Dukes and Nantucket, 1. Total, 49. The. opponents of this law, therefore, show conclusively, that there has not been a fair and full expression of the public sentiment upon it ; and that the elections for 1839, indicate a decisive expression against the law, calling for a modification o/ repeal of it at the present session. Conclusion. What then have the people a right to expect, and what can be done to settle this unhappy conflict in a question of public morals and private right? The answer of the opponents of this law, (who, though they may fail now, never will, and never can cease to oppose it3 arbitrary and unjust principles,) is **. regulate, but not prohibit," Apply your laws to places and police, not to property or its uses, — to offences, not to innocent acts ; and leave the rest to moral and social influences. Do not attempt to single out and separate classes of men according to their property, who may indulge on one side of the line, and who are to be restrained on the other; nor to prescribe the quantity these two classes may or may not purchase at a time. All history, all experience, and all the attributes of human nature, are against the success of such a law. Your law professes to aim to stop poor men's appetites by stopping sales in small quantities. How futile ! You leave the habits and the wants of society, which demand and will have this indulgence while the article is to be found. They will seek it the more eagerly the more your law attempts to restrict it. You leave the customers, and think to stop the sale, while you increase the demand by the reaction against your law. You leave the free importation of ardent spirit, — you leave its manu- facture, — you leave its unrestrained sale over fifteen gallons, — you leave wine, in all its gradations, unrestricted in any quantity, and by any one who chooses to expose it to sale ; — and yet you expect such a law will put an end to tippling, and compel the poorer classes to resort to total abstinence! Be sure of it, the end of this law, if it be unwisely persisted in, will show the folly of such an estimate of human nature. We have history for it, and history is philosophy teaching by example. I pray your attention to the following extract from a highly authentic work, (McCulloch's Encyclopedia., page 1073,) shewing the effects of just such laws as this, designed to be prohibitory, which the ultra friends of temperance attempted to enforce in 1742, with the same mistaken zeal that influences the ultra friends of Temperance, in 1839. Let them not rely on the supposed difference in public sentiment now and an hundred years ago. If men love temperance more than they did then, so do "they love liberty and hate arbitrary laws more. They can be more easily persuaded now, but cannot be so easily driven, as in ,1742. [Extract from McCuUock, p. 1073.] " During the latter part of the reign of George I., and the earlier part of that of George 11., gin drinking was exceedingly prevalent; and the cheapness of ardent spirits, and trie multiplication of public houses, were denounced from "the pulpit, and in the presentments of grand juries; as pregnant with the most destructive conse- quences to the health and morals of the community, At length, ministers determined to make a vigorous effort to put a stop to the further use of spirituous liquors, except p.s a. cordial or medicine. For this purpose, an act was passed in 1736, the history and effects of which deserve to be studied by all who are clamorous for an increase of the duties on spirits. Its preamble is to this effect :— ' \Vhe1ea3, the drinking of spirituous liquors, or strong water, is become very common, especially among people of lower and inferior rank, the constant and excessive use of which lends greatly to the destruc- tion of their health, rendering them unfit for useful labor and business, debauching their morals, and inciting them to perpetrate all vices; and the ill consequences of the excessive use of such liquors are not confined to the present generation, but extend to future ages, and tend to the destruction and ruin of this kingdom.' The enactments were such as might be expected to follow a preamble of this sort. They were not intended to repress the vice of gin-drinking, but to root it out altogether. To accom- plish this, a duty of twenty ehilLingS a gallon was laid on spirits, exclusive of a heavy license duty on retailers. Extraordinary encouragements were at the same time held out to informers, and a fine of £100 was ordered to be rigorously exacted from those who, were it even through inadvertency, should vend the smallest quantity of spirits which had not paid the full duty. Here was an act which might, one would think, have satisfied the bitterest enemy of gin. But instead of the anticipated effects, it produced those directly opposite. The respectable dealers withdrew from a trade pro- scribed by the legislature ; so that the spirit business fell almostentirely into the hands of the lowest and most profligate characters, who, as they had nothing to lose, were not deterred by penalties from breaking through all its provisions. The populace having in this, as in all similar cases, espoused the cause of the smugglers and unli- censed dealers, the officers of the revenue were openly assaulted in the streets of London and other great towns; informers were hunted down Jike wild beasts; and drunkenness, disorders, and crimes, increased with a frightful rapidity. 'Within two years of the passing of the act,' says Tindal, 'it had become odious and contemptible, and policy, as \j?ell as humanity, forced the commissioners of excise to mitigate its penalties.' — (Continuation of Rnpin, vol. viii. p. 358, ed. 1759.) The same historian mentions, (vol. viii., p. 300,) that during the two years in question, no fewer than twelve thousand persons were convicted of offences connected with the sale of spirits. But no exertions on the part of the revenue officers and magistrates, could stem the torrent of smuggling According to a statement made by the Earl of Cholrnondeley, in the House of Lords — (Timber land's Debates in the House of Lords, vol. viii. p. 338,) it appears that, at the very moment when the sale of spirits was declared to be illegal, and every possible exertion made to suppress it, upwards of seven millions of gallons were annually consumed in London, and other parts immediately adjacent! Under such circumstances, government had but one course to follow — to give up the unequal struggle. In 1742, the high prohibitory duties were accordingly repealed, and such moderate duties imposed as were calculated to increase the revenue by increasing the consumption of legally distilled spirits. The bill for this purpose was vehemently opposed in the House of Lords by most of the bishops, and many other peers, who exhausted all their rhetoric in depicting the mischievous consequences that would result from a toleration of the practice of gin drinking. To these declamations it was unanswerably replied, that whatever the evils of the practice might be, it was impos- sible to repress them by prohibitory enactments; and that the attempts to do so had been productive of far more mischief than had ever resulted, or could be expected to result, from the greatest abuse of spirits. The consequences of the change were highly beneficial. An instant stop was put to smuggling; and if the vice of drunkenness was not materially diminished, it Las never been stated that it was increased." These, Mr. Chairman, are the views of the great body of your fellow citizens who ask for the repeal of this law. Their stake in society, in property, in good government, in pure morals, in virtuous habits, in the education and welfare of their children, is as great as that of the supporters of this law; and they claim to be as good citizens and as philanthropic as they are. Depend upon it, that if the zealous support of this law is to be made the test of true philanthropy and of good morals, it will ultimately be found that the most energetic, industrious, intelligent and honorable, of the people of Massachusetts, must be ranked as bad citizens. They will never approve, though they may not openly oppose, such legislation. No, Sir. The opponents of this law are among the best, and most virtuous and liberal, of your citizens. They are the rational friends of temperance; but they are the friends of liberty and enlightened laws, as well as the friends of temperance. They say to you, as the agents of the people, commissioned by them t these words :•. — " All this moral influence has been put into operation, within four years past. There has been no forcing system, and there can be ao appeal to selrlsh, sordid 3 or ambitious motives." "We would enforce no man's conscience beyond its own honest promptings. Wac judge no man, we condemn none; nor would- we, if we could, take one particle from. Ehe respectability or usefulness of any citizen who indulges in an habitual, temperate- •use of ardent spirits. In all other relations except the moral influence he might exert In- the cause of temperance, by example as well as precept, he may, perhaps, hold at Higher place in the estimation of the virtuous and. intelligent, than any member of a temperance society. But. in that relation, can he exert the healthful influence that,, ss a moral, an enlightened, and above ail, a Christian member o£ society, he ought to> ss-epcise ?' 45 **The strength of Temperance Associations will go on increasing so long as tfwi friends of Temperance constitute, as they now do, solely a moral party ; but the mo- ment these associations shall (urn aside from their legitimate purpose, to mingle in party strife, whether in politics or religion, that moment, bo they ever so strong, they wife become shorn of their strength, and will fall an easy prey to the Philistines Persua- sion, and not coercion, example and not dictation, are the legitimate weapons of our moral warfare."' — [1st Quarterly Report, July 1830, of the Providence Association for the Promotion of Temperance.]. Such was my temperance faith then, such is it now, and from that day I have not ceased to show my faith in practical total abstinence, and iu moral suasion, by my works. Pardon me for this allusion to my personal relations to this cause, but the unworthy attempt made to identify opposition to this law with opposi- tion to temperance, may seem to justify it- Here then I leave the cause of the memorialists. It has been patiently heard thus far; let it be fairly judged. The Executive who signed this- taw, now intimates strongly in his address to both Houses, doubts of its expediency or practicability. He invites them to a calm and dispassionate consideration of the whole subject. The memorialists earnestly desire th& same - t and if this matter, (aside from the pride of opinion, which often? misleads men to persist in error rather than confess wrong,) can command the ealin, dispassionate, and deliberate action of the Legislature, there irjust be but one answer to the prayer of the memorialists I " It ought to- fee granted V TESTIMONY INTRODUCED BY THE MEMORIALISTS. Jan. 29, 1339. — Samuel A. Eliot, Mayor of the city of Boston, being sworn, an*? questioned, testified: — » That he had examined the law, and thought it would be extremely difficult to enforce it to any extent, in the city. In the position he occupied, as the head of the- police, he had never allowed himselF to doubt the practicability of enforcing any law; but this was different from any that had come under his observation. It would require- unusual energy and even physical force, through a very great addition to the police, to cause it to be carried into strict execution. He could not undertake to do it, wilh the present disposable means of the police. He had had much practical aeqnaintanes with the subject, and was fully satisfied, and thought the opinion -would ultimately become general, that regulation promotes temperance, and prohibition increases intent,- perance. A law of regulation could be enforced, but not of prohibition, to the extent this proposed. In answer to an inquiry as to the effect of the recent attempt to intro- duce stronger laws against the sale of ardent spirits, the Mayor stated, that "During the past year, according to the reports of the night watch, it appeared that there had been an increase of the number of persons detained for drunkenness during the nicrht. This could be only partially accounted for from the fact that there had also been an increase in the number of the night police. He could attribute it to no par- ticular cause. The population of the city had increased but little in that time."' u The trials at the' Police Court, for drunkenness, had gradually increased for some years. In 1835 the number of cases tried was 317, at an expense of $1499. In 1836 r 367 cases, at $1724. In 1837, 444 cases, at $2,686. In 1838, 076 cases, at $3,177. He. believed that the system of granting licences for the sale of spirituous liquors, in, this city, iu the present state of society, had a greater tendency to check the evils of intemperance than the prohibition of the sale of spirituous liquors." "There were certain rules which regulated the Board of Alderman in granting: licences. The number of licences granted since 1830, was as follows : — in 183U, 5(!0j iu 1831, 690; in 1832, 410; in 1833, 492 ; in 1834, 394; in 1835, 300; in 1836, 385; in 1837, 360 ; in 1838, 408." "A large proportion, more than half of the commitments by the night watch, had been for intemperance — which was also a frequent cause of disorder and disturbance." " He thought it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to discriminate between the sale of wine by the glass, and other kinds of spirituous liquors. A per- mission to sail wines, would doubtless be used with impunity to sell other liquors." 48 " The™ would probably be great opposition to the law from thope who were accus- tomed to sell spirits, arid tii;>s« who were accustomed to buy it — although, doubtless a lar^o proportion of the sellers would support the law if it should not be repealed — or any other which might be enacted." '"' He believed that an intemperate man would be likely to drink oftener, and a tem- perate man to indulge more, in consequence of the passage of this law prohibiting the sale of spirituous liquors." " In his opinion, the granting of licences had a tendency to prevent violations by the unlicensed persons." On the cross examination by Messrs.- Crosby, Bolles, Sprague, and others, who appeared in support of the law, the following facts were illicited : — " Has the granting of licenses a tendency to increase or diminish drinking?" "Undoubtedly the granting of licenses would check intemperance." " What portion of the prosecutions has resulted in convictions i" " It is impossible for me to tell; probably most of thein." " What fact have you to show that the license law has increased intemperance?" " I know of no fact to illustrate it, except from what has come to my knowledge. I know it to be so." " What proportion of committals to the watch-house are for drunkenness ?" " I do not know. A large proportion. More than half." " You say that since 1834, the number of drunkards has increased. Has there been a corresponding increase of other offences, such as theft, &.c. ?" " 1 do not know positively, but believe not." " Hovy great an increase of the police would it take to enforce the new law ?" " I think it would take every bayonet in the city to enforce it." " Would licensing houses of ill fame decrease that vice ?" " 1 cannot say. The popularity of the vice is not the same. One is an acquired fopensity. The other not." "Do you mean to say that the whole military force of the city would be requisite to tftforce the license law?" " The attempt to enforce it would be so hazardous that it is impossible to say what s-neans would be necessary to preserve order." " You say that intemperance has increased during the last year, in consequence af the law. Do you mean that the drunkard gets drunk oftener, or other people drink more in anticipation of the enforcement of the law?" " I believe both." [We regret that owing to the noise and confusion of persons constantly coming in and going out of the hall, and the low tone of voice in which the questions were put and answered, we were unable to hear a large por- tion of the testimony. What we did hear of Mr. Eliot's answers appeared to be very prompt, very much to the point, very appropriate, very apt, and he did not seem at all disconcerted by the severe cross questioning which he underwent.] THE MAYOR'S LETTER TO MR. DEXTER. City Hall, Jan. 30, 1839. My Dear Sir, — It is stated in one of the papers, this morning, that I was ex- amined as to the probable effect of the law of the last session, respecting licensing. i do not recollect that any direct question of that kind was put to me, and I avail myself of a few moments leisure to state to you what, in my opinion, will be its effect, if it be persevered in by the Legislature. Some three thousand or four thousand male adults, legal voters, in this city, will find themselves suddenly cut off from their iccustomed means of indulgence of established habits — some, of the temperate, and some, of the intemperate use of ardent spirits. Of these, a large proportion will be entirely deprived, by want of means, from the power of obtaining any of their usual beverage, except by some evasion of the law, or open disregard of it, or by the very bad expedient of clubbing together to purchase fifteen gallons, and then dividing it. Besides these, a large number of dealers would lose their customers; and it cannot be supposed that all these persons will submit quietly to what they regard as an infringe- ment of their rights. Open violations of the law, and secret evasions of it, will take place ; and \kt* enforcement of it can but set one portion of the population against 47 another, and produce a scene of confusion and tumult unparalleled. Jn all this the** is not the least progress of temperance. I was asked yesterday if great good would not ensue from the law ? I answered — none which may not be produced by other means, without the agitation which is cer- tain to be the effect of this. The temperance party seem to think this law is the only means of doing good in the cause. They regard it as a father does a pet child— a paragon of perfection, which it never was. Other laws may be devised, in my opinion, much more effectual; and a great objection I have to the law, is the probable opposite tendency of it, viz. — to intemperance. Restrain, — make it difficult for the men 1 have spoken of ahove, to indulge themselves to excess, but not impossible. Leave them to their own free moral agency — put down the limit from fifteen gallons to a quart, or a pint, so that the poorest man may get intoxicated if he chooses ; and then close the dram shops, i. e. say that none shall be mixed or drunk on the premises of the seller, (excepting taverners,) and I would guarantee, for a small premium, a great progress to the temperance cause, in a short time. In answer to the question asked me yesterday, as to the facts on which rr.y opinion was based, that licensing hnd a tendency to check intemperance, 1 ought to have said, in addition to the increase of intemperance in the city, that statements, which I be- lieve to be true, have been often made to mo of the increase of the sale of ardent spirits by wholesale dealers, the Inst year,— especially to those markets where prohibition hag taken the place of regulatioji. I do not know whether this is evidence, but I wag asked the grounds of my opinion, and had I been sufficiently collected, should hava answered in this way. I observed an attempt to make it appear that the increased vigilance and activity of a temperance man as City Marshal, had revealed all the increased number of casea of drunkenness. But he has nothing to do with those cases-- they are reported and complained of by the police officers and the watch, fie, by the way, is as much op- posed to the late law asT._aro. ] put this note into yo'ur harm's to make use of as you deem expedient. If you think proper to call on me to make such statements to the committee, viva voce, 1 am ready-; but as I have three other legislative committees to wait upon at thi>; time, I should rather be excused, if this may be received instead. I write as I should speak, unde* the responsibility of my oalh. Yours very truly, SAMUEL A. ELIOT. To Frakklin Dexter, Esq. Jan. 31, 1839.— E. J. Baker, of Milton, Norfolk County. In this CYmniv nv licenses have been granted by the County Commissioners, since 1835. The proaibjUwx has increased the sale in many places. Previous to 1835, there were about ten Ik&aStgr in Milton, and the places generally well regulated. There are now six or ei*S? places where spirits are sold. The better class get it at particular houses. Others gsa it in cellars and secret places, and at Irish houses. So long as licenses existed, tt-i sale was confined to licensed places. The sale has increased, and drunkenness uatt increased, within the past year. Has not seen so much drunkenness for six years, t.j in the past year. The law was evaded, and the Sunday law had mil ueen enforced. It was openly violated in many places. He called at a tavern the other day U>t whiskey punch, and was told he could have wine punch, — but the wine punch was made of whiskey. The name of the taverner was demanded by the counsel for the remonstrants. The witness replied that he would gh'e any information in his power, to aid the committee in these inquiries, but he could not disclose the names of persons, to subject them to prosecution. After a discussion by the counsel on both sides, Mr. Senator Walcot, Chairman of the Committee, without taking a vote in the Committee, decided that the name must be given. Witness declined, and the Chairman refused to hear him any further. Josiah Braolee, of Boston, was called, and Mr. Hallett proposed that the form of oath be to make true answers to questions, which was the proper Parliamentary form. Mr. Lincoln, of Worcester, moved that the usual form of the judicial oath be adminis- tered, and the Committee so ordered. Mr. Bradlee testified that he was an importer of spirituous liquor. Is a larwe dealer in brandy and gin, and imports and sells as much as he ever did. His general sales are probably larger than ever. The demand is beyond the supply in the market at present, particularly for brandy People were very dry. A cargo of brandy was expected, and they were calling for the article earnestly. The whale ships from New- Bedford, do not carry out rum now. There eould not be any considerable quantity taken out of New-Bedford in that way. If sent there, it must be consumed in some other way. He had for many years supplied orders for the whale ships. Formerly they carried out spirits, but now it was voluntarily discontinued, without any law {eq«jiring it. He had had only two orders for rum for whale ships, in &even years. From Iris observation about the wharves, lie believed there waa £.s mwc'h eptrrtaose liquor shipped to New Bedford now, as there ever was. Last week he saw seven pipes of brandy put on board a vessel for New Bedford. From all he saw, he was satisfied that there was no diminution in the quantity of spirits sent to New Bedford, but rather an increase. Saw six casks yesterday going on board a New Bedfor.d packet, and the Captain said he had thirty barrels of spirits besides, then on board. On cross examination. The shipment of spirits to New Bedford, is certainly greater than ever. More or less brandy, gin, rum, Ac. are constantly alongside the New Bedford packets, in front of my store. Twenty years ago, orders were universal for ardent spirits, in fitting out ships. Now they are entirely out of use. My orders iiave discontinued entirely. Ezra Wjgstok, Jr. City Marshal of Boston. — Has the immediate superintendence .of the police department. 1 should suppose that the law of 1838, could not be enforced in the present state of society, "it would require, in order to enforce it to any extent, means entirely different from the ordinary mode of enforcing the laws. Cannot say •what number of extra police, but it must be very large. A large portion of the dis- order in the city arises from intemperance. In my opinion, this law will not diminish, fbut rather increase this evil. I do not think it will decrease, but be likely to increase., the number of places where liquors will be sold. The secresy of the places would be jiksly to increase vice. The secret places are much more injurious than open and licensed ones. These last are under the eye of tiue police. The former it would be> •difficult to reach. The present number of licensed places is four hundred. Jf no licenses were granted, there would no doubt be as many places open, and as many to cell without, as with licenses. Temperance would be better assisted by regulation lhan by prohibition, unless other means than can now be used, are resorted to. Have taken an interest personally in the subject of temperance. From my own observatioB am satisfied that places where ardent spirit is sold, are more frequented now than ■formerly. Know no other cause for this than the effect of restraint by law. My opinion is, that many drams are taken because those who drink them believe they are ■asserting a public and private right. On cross examination. Most of the cases of intemperance that fall under the City police, come from low grog shops — places that are not licensed. But very few of the licensed places are low. Most of these low grog shops were licensed many years ago. ; but more care is now taken As to the enforcement of the law in Boston, it would depend mainly on the sense of obligation the dealers and buyers might feel to obsarve sit. The nature of the evidence is difficult for the police to get at, and the mode of :doing it, if pressed, would be unusual. There are probably three hundred tenements in whvr.h the article is sold without license. Believe that at least half, say two hun- dred, of those now licensed, would continue to sell if this law is not repealed. ;[Rev. Mr. Cobb, of VValtham, one of the agents of some of the Societies, employed 54o appear in behalf of the law, here proposed a very long and elaborate query as to the iKoral effect ot a moral law, in producing moral influences favorable to the observance ,0S9 1837 17 out of 23 362 185 8,928 23.247 18*8 17 out of -3 3*0 127 1 9,505 1 . -3,247 88 PAUPERISM. TABLE No. 2. Comparison of Pauper Returns for 1837 and 1838, betioeen Eight Coun- ties, in Six of iffhich prohibition has been entire for four years, (and in two all but taverns, viz. Essex amd Hampshire,) and, Six Counties where there has been no prohibition. ■^i^— i^M W I W» I I » I ■ Ml I !*■■■! II II— ^^M I — ■! — Mil — ^^— * — ^ The Eight Prohibitory Counties. Counties C CD O - 3 re "13 o re re t os'g re re •1 <• o h: S OS re re K O Population A orf Ik Bristol Plymouth Barnstable .Nantucket Dukes Hampshire Essex Totals 64 117 b3 24 49 ~r3iF i so r Same 23 ! r Same | f Same 13 TfiF I 53 ! I 250 | 57 | $ 1 ,992 | 543 J, 896 | 274 | 500 18 757 20 5,144 498 | . 53 | 28 I 85 11,124 | Aggregate Population in 1830 286,610 Aggregate Population in 1837 322,848 The Six Regulating Counties. Counties 5>§ £ re s ■c "S, o re k: re re o HO x re Popul .turn Suffolk 1 381 , 1 15 1 38) | 1 1 $177 Aggregate Population Middlesex 1 15 1 1 1 190 | 65 | 2,308 | Worcester 1 35 | 1 38 | 1 13 | 3,205 | in 18(0 Hampden 1 51 | 1 29 | 1 arj | 1 23 | 1 12 1 2,257 | 342,142 Berkshire 1 13 i 1 1,450 | In 1837 Frankln 1 ■ 1 2 37 | 37 1 2 | | | 1 631 378,483 Total < 1 511 | 2 1 81 | 242 | 478 12 1 10,220 | 1.80S Showing the results in favor of the Regulating Counties, viz : Greater increase of Poor 48; decrease of Intemperate Poor 161 ; increase of For- eign Poor 615 ; increase of Expenses $8,412. In the Prohibiting Counties, increase of Poor 461 ; of Intemperates 445; decrease of Foreign Poor 57; increase of Expenses $11,124. Remarks. Relative nett gain in the Regulating, over the Prohibiting Counties, (notwithstanding a large increase of foreign poor in the former, and decrease in the latter, exceeding by 104 the whole increase of poor in tne former,) viz: nett gain in intemperate poor 606; in expense $2712. The comparison is the more striking from the fact that the population in the six Regulating Counties which show the best results as to pauperism and intemperance, was greater in 1830 than in the Prohibiting Counties by 55,532, and in 1837 by 55,535. That excess of population if added to the Piohibiting Counties, would, in the some proportion, add 86 intemper- ate poor, making their number, with the same population as the six Regu- lating Counties. 531 actual increase, and a nett relative increase of 682. If Salem is deducted from Essex, it only varies the result 25 less pau- pers, 22 less intemperate, 5 less decrease of foreigners, and $400 less ex- pense. E=sex would then stand 166 increase poor, 228 increase intemper- 89 ale, and $4774 increase expenses;, and Middlesex 15 increase poor, 190 decrease intemperate, and $2308 increase expenses. The comparison between Essex and Middlesex is a most conclusive de- monstration of the effects of the two policies. Essex has been the field of District Attorney Huntington's zealous labors. Bishop Laud never perse- cuted the conventiclers more furiously than that officer has tire retailers in Essex. He there reigns supremely in Courts and over juries, and convicts whom he will. He has driven this process for six years, while Middlesex and her juries have been unawed by his official power, and that county has licensed and sold freely. What is the result in both these ag- ricultural counties'? Essex has 93,000 population, Middlesex 98,000. Essex has Salem and Newburyport, Middlesex, Lowell and Charlestown. Essex has had a decrease of 20 foreigners to relieve her pauperism, Mid- dlesex has had an increase of 65 foreigners to add to her pauperism, with the constant source of this increase, the shifting manufacturing population of Lowell and other like places, to operate on her pauperism. And yet Middlesex exhibits 151 less increase of poor, 190 decrease to 22S increase in Essex" of intemperate poor, and $2466 less expense in the support of the poor. No returns of overseers, wlio are for or against licensing, can affect these aggregates, as to whole numbers and whole expense. The result can only be traced to the operation of the two systems of regulation and prohibition. The like result is shown as to crime. In three years, from 1835 to 1239, Essex has sent to her prisons 1211 criminals. In the same period, Middlesex but 945. Gain 257. Both- counties have the same prosecu- ting officer. PAUPERISM. TABLE No. 3. Comparison of Pauperism and Intemperance, between the years 1837 and 1838. Full Returns, and complete from all the Counties. Counties Whole No ol 1 Poor in 1837 Whole No of 1 Poor in 1838 lutein- pera e in 1837 • j lntem- 1 perate m 1838 1 !• oreicn- ers in 1837 1 1'oreign- ers in 1838 1 Expenses | in 1837 Expenses in 1838 Huffol > 3,291 | 3,675 [ 1 ,087 1,072 1,304 1,684 4 ,913 42,-36 Essex 2,421 2,612 1,611 1,861 19J 17' 53,328 58,469 Middlesex 1 V. 84 | 2,1199 | 1,358 | 1,168 | 768 833 53,518 55,826 Worcester | 1, 3(5.) | 1,395 | S19 557 | 136 154 31,5 e 31,713 Hampshire 428 441 202 149 44 36 10,681 11,438 11 nipden 3 it; 397 | 135 160 | '23 35 1 7,821 9,878 Franklin 435 433 129 •Q-j 2 4 1 1 ,233 9,602 Berkshire | 53!) | 568 | Bfl 150 1 »' 1 34 1 11,0 2 12,452 Norfolk 800 809 29/ 361 144 87 17,809 19,751 Biistol | 1,310 1 >,4 7 | 866 929 2H 22) | 27,7t3 28,3i'6 1 lymouth 636 | 685 | '.01 291 35 35 17,68 19,514 B unstable 3«7 32i 58 81 ' 3 12,588 12,862 Dukes 3 towns 41 41 4 4 2,302 | 2,320 Nantuckei | 98 | 167 1 79 1 « 1 1 10 | 6,720 7,220 Tot ils in 3 '5 Tiwns 14,' 99 15.069 6,673 6,962 2,870 3,990 3 6,541 325,087 Note. In 1835 the Commissioners on Pauperism estimated the whole expense in the Commonwealth $239,476. In 1835, Governor Davis, in his message, called the attention of the Legislature to the fact that pauperism was on the increase. Mr. Artemas Simmons, of the Boston Almshouse, says: "The pauper expenses are twice as great in Massachusetts, in proportion to population, 12 90 as in New- York, where returns are made annually, by counties." What is the plain inference? The pauper expenses were never seriously com- plained of as increasing in this State, till the force temperance laws began to operate. Under that process they have become double the like expenses in New- York, which has a vastly less moral and industrious population, as a whole, with immensely more foreigners and vagrants, and without a single force temperance law ! PAUPERISM. TABLE No. 4. Comparison of Aggregates for the State, in 1837 and 1838 I Whole -oof I'aupers | intemperate | Foreigners | i xpenses In 1838 15,069 ci,96'2 I 3,290 I . '25,087 In 1837 ]4,i-99 6,673 •2,870 306,548 Ditleience against 1838 97 U 2tf9 420 $18,439 Decrease of expense in Suffolk and Franklin, $1,808 Increase in all the other Counties, $20,537 fX/ 3 The only towns in the State which have not a single pauper, are Erving and Munroe, in Franklin County ; one of the most temperate counties, and the most opposed to this act of any in the State. Plymouth is the only county from which full returns have been made for three years. PAUPERISM. TABLE No. 5. The Result in Plymouth for three years. 1 County 3 years Whole - o Poor 1836 Do 1837 Do 1838 Intern 1836 Do 1837 Do 1838 Koieign 1836 Do 1837 Do ; 1838 1 Exp's 1836 Do 1837 i Do 1 1838 Plymouth | 39 > | 636 685 80* | :.01 | '291 | 19 35 | 35 1 4,995 | 17,6,8 | 19,5 4 Increase from 1836 to 1 39 295 211 16 $4,519 *i\ot stated. This is one of the most rigid prohibitory Counties, and yet how unfavor- able the result. PAUPERISM. TABLE No. 6. Boston Alms House. Year | Whole No of Poor | Intemperate No of Licenses 1835 1,476 1,107 300 1836 1,270 825 385 1837 1,443 1,083 360 1838 1.424 1,063 403 Showing in the city, wore there were most licenses and freest sale, a decreaie since 1835 of 52 poor in the Alms House ; a decrease of 39 intemperates ; an increase of but $353 in expenses; and an increase of 108 licenses. And all this improvement against an increase of 380 for- eigners. These are the general aggregates, by State and County estimates, and I ask vou, Gentlemen of the Committee, if, with your preconceived notions on this subject, derived from the loose and hitherto unquestioned statistics of the moral reform agents, you are not prepared to say with one of these 91 agents who opened the reply, that " the Statistics on Pauperism are indeed overwhelming!" But I have not, said Mr. H. relied merely on aggregates. I have run out the minutest details; applied it to towns, and especially to every town held up here, as having improved in pauperism by refusing licenses. The result is uniformly the same as is here demonstrated. 92 PAUPERISM. TABLE No. 7. SO s s e •♦»» B a ,ss 'So a «j «.- »c wi e i-a 9 11 E tn C d: Q- 3 a- — 5 ER S SO ri © SO O (C IO O O Li COO©,-/-, ClClflOOOXNQ ro co © o ooimhoct oioooqo cSSoocSSo X SCO CO O'OCONQOSO, ©_* CO g^ig SOMCO©©XOi«© — 1 r-1 ri t-l CS SO ©» kfl »-( ^(jf ,_?,;_, i^ifS r-Trl i-i 1 © © X © MOlffOOW 001*00 OlOOIfllOOOOOO 0-U-.0 ■* O N SO O Ol OJlpOO CI^BCJONOCB i>©©_os x wso so,* oj_ ©wwnw iq_co_ri m_i> u^cor- ^t> — Tr-Trl" i-7 i— 1 CS SO OlOr i rt CM MHILO 11 n ri i-i T3 P ■* © © *j ri © © © o- © o © n iO CO '.O <3 eo m O O O^OO OJ — ■ WTOiO root?*, 'S «_■>* MCS ©_©„--, in_ OI_M CS Tf_X so -1 CM ^j ri r1 CS CO T— If— 1 ri fl ^ ri o o fe5 55 $1,032 657 Not stated 1,100 570 1,200 1,078 850 1,476 500 Not given 1,240 1,209 800 602 woo^OOSOUSrtJlCOCOCtlNriHWOOJinHMgOH 3-!n M M soJj-NiOO)rtrt010TiCMCNNi> OJSOTf io w ^ pi n cm i— i SiSiOCJlFHNOOlflWOOlBXSDtOCCiSC.MiOiNlSlflSStsOCO cs co •*? ri co i-i t cm x x x x 1.0 x o * so to co o cs so x . "»to.*io W CM ri CO CO ri ri CO I— 1 MOiSW0IJO^l0HOC8llS!0l»(5*S5OKl9(0IS.rtOKj; ror-cocoi-oosoocsf-i n x cm © •># o so cm cm co L.O CM n CO CM CO r— * iOtoooa;wisoiocN-ixoi3oa«(BHO!Ci>oonb.i' so cm o cm cm -i tji ri as io ■ cs o uo co -*j- o) 10 t co cm >— io sr- >-i m so *» co kO CM -^ CO CO ri huMh c c c - c - ■*-» CMCM-— i-i— i oi ttsflij^i >-i,co-^'>-"'3"a i— i c* i— i o o o o coo 55 55 Z 55 55 55 55 24 11 No return No return 21 No return 27 18 45 No return do do do 161 52 J8 26 No return No return 74 100 No return No return No return 29 40 48 20 jb. - • ft" c-hI g = 93 The same results follow from 35 towns, taken promiscuously, all over the state. The figures show that in the towns where licenses have been hardest contended against, and prosecutions most persevering, there is a relative increase of the ichole number of poor, and the expenses of their support, with a corresponding increase of intemperate*. The reverse will be very generally found, on comparison, in the licensing towns. Can this be accidental. On which side then is the pauper argument? It is enough for us to sho.v a doubt as to the beneficial effects of this Act upon pauperism. Tha other side is bound to prove it. They fail, and we demonstrate the nega- tive of the main position on which the whole pretence for the continuance of this Act rests. Should it be attempted to obviate the effect of this perfectly astounding disclosure, as to the years preceeding 1837, from the fact that before that time the poor were classed as temperate and intemperate, not including wives and children of intemperate persons ; the answer is, that there was another large column in those years, under the head of "not stated ;" and even if all these were added to the intemperates, an increase of pauperism and intemperance would still be shown in the prohit'ting counties. But the same rule must apply to regulating as well as prohibiting Coun- ties, and this supposed increase, by adding women and children, is no an- swer as to the comparatively greater increase of paupers and of intemperate paupers, in the prohibiting Counties. Neither does it touch the fact of the increase of the whole number, and of the expenses of paupers, nor in any way apply to the comparative returns of 1837 and 1838. Another important fact comes in. There is an increase of nearly 1000 paupers in 1837 over 1839; and yet 1837 was the year of pressure and distress, when labor was driven from its means of support ; but in 1838, business revived, and the able bodied who had sought refuge in the Alms House, or been aided by the overseers, were again able to provide for them- selves. Consequently there would be less poor supported in 1833, growing out of the depression of business and labor, than in 1837.* So far then as the pauper argument is concerned, if refusing licenses is the test of Temperance it would be easier from actual statistics to show that Temperance increases pauperism, than that Intemperance pro- duces that effect. The result is wholly unexpected, and yet it is soundly philosophical. There is something at the bottom which those who have reasoned on the surface have overlooked. It is a law of human nature, higher than all human laws. Force produces re-action. The class of men most liable to pauperism, but who can sustain themselves by labor under ordinary circumstances, will be the more eager to procure their accustomed indulgence, the more severe the laws are against it ; and as secret indulgence is always more seducing than open, they will drink the more, the more the laws are made to restrain them. This operation of all sumptuary laws may be set down as an axiom in political economy. In addition to these statistics which tlemonstrate that the Legislature has no ground for maintaining the force Act of 1838, upon the pauper argument ; the evidence before the Committee, the increased importation in Boston, and the enormous sales to counties where prohibition has pre- vailed ; all tend to the same point. * After this demonstration, Mr. Walcott attempted to get round it by hinting that in the prohibitory counties, the Overseers must have exagcrated! If he is content with an argument which proves that the supporters of the Act will prevaricate to sustain it, and that the statistics of intemperance have been over-stated, fur the li pious fraud" of deceiving the public, as to the truth of the matter; he is welcome to all the advantages he can derive from such gross Jesuitism. 94. The Committee rejected the evidence as to the sales in Boston to be sent to Bristol and other counties, but the remonstrants gave as a wit- ness, Captain Taber, who more than proved our rejected facts. He swears positively to 1216 barrels, or 48,640 gallons, which he freighted from Boston to New Bedford, in 1838. He admits another packet, car- ried one fourth as much, which makes 60,800 gallons, besides what was sent by transient vessels ; by land, and also in casks marked as wine and vinegar. The aggregate thus proved must exceed the 70,000 gallons .shown by the books of merchants of Boston to have been sent to Bristol. The result is, that this pattern Temperance County, with its law of prohibition, has in one year, consumed in a population of 58,152 * up- wards of 79,000 gallons of spirits, which is Jive qtiarts and one pint to ev- ery man, woman, and child in the county. 'Plymouth, another pattern county, with 46,253 * population, has also consumed 31,000 gallons, received from Boston alone, which is over Jive pints for every mouth in the county ! Nantucket, with 9048 population, has had 14,000 gallons from Boston, equal to six quarts, for every mouth in that county ! And by the showing of the remonstrants' witness, (Mr. Bacon,) the town of Sandwich with 3579 souls, where he undertook to testify that none was used but by those beyond moral means, has consumed, in less than half a year, 2640 gallons, which is over Jive pints to each inhabitant. What a wide calculation in this witness ! for either most of his townsmen are " beyond moral influ- ence," or a few drink beyond all account ! Both views are incorrect. There is no more moral community in the State, than that of Sandwich. These facts will serve to show how little reliance is to be placed on the o-uesses of witnesses as to the diminution in the prohibiting counties; while the pauper argument has been directly reversed, and proves con- clusively, either that the free sale does not increase intemperance, or that there is more consumed to make paupers, in the prohibiting than in the licensing counties. The extent to which the zeal of some men will carry them against facts, was remarkably illustrated, by Dr. Alden, of Randolph, who most confidently testified that pauperism had decreased in his town, because drinking had ; when the returns of the Overseers, for four years, exhib- ited exactly the reverse. Let that respectable witness learn to be less confident, in future, if he loves truth as well as temperance. Judge Leland, who presented himself as a sort of Napolean, prepa- red to " subdue the dealers " in a campaign of eighteen months, was equal- ly unfortunate. He declared that Foxborough was an example for any town in the Commonwealth, and there was no sale there. Yet in that pattern town, pauperism and intemperance have increased, while in Dor- chester and Quincy, which Mr. Leland specified as places of free sale, pauperism has decreased. Roxbury, with all the facilities of Boston, of which it is virtually the suburbs, is the only town named in Norfolk, where pauperism has diminished. The District Attorney, Mr. Huntington, was equally unfortunate and incorrect in his estimates. His pattern towns in Essex, have increased their pauperism much more than the towns he reprobates as still selling ; and the town which of all others he selected to test the pauper argument, (Beverly,) makes one of the worst exhibits in the whole official returns to the Secretary ! Tenth. The remonstrants further contend that Alcohol is the great obstacle to all moral reforms, and therefore they must have this force Act to compel those whom they cannot persuade. """"Census of 1837. 95 We prove that if it be so, this Act will but increase the obstacle. But we also maintain that if this Act is to be pushed, there will he found in active ferment, a worse than physical alcohol to stimulate excited men to unjust and injurious acts, — the alcohol of bigotry and misdirected zeal ! Dr. Johnson has described the mad philosopher in Rasselas, as really believing that he controlled the physical elements. The gentleman who opened this cause for the remonstrants, (Mr. Crosby,) most complacently represented himself at the head of his Society, as controlling all the moral elements ! " We must contrive to make the world better ! " he exclaimed. " These great benevolent operations are under the direction of different Societies who are appointed to carry them forward, and we must have a virtuous community." Meaning, no doubt, " peaceably if they can hut forcibly if they must ! " If they must have it, of course they must have force laws to compel men to come into their creeds; and thus, in effect, we are told, that the moral reform associations chiim to be a political power in the State, the su- preme lawgivers upon men's beliefs and appetites, and the great moral regulator! This is in fact the political struggle now going on ; whether these irresponsible Societies or the people shall control the Legislature. This is seen in the secret movements of Temperance Societies and Conventions ; an extraneous power, which has directly interfered in po- litical action, and brought about and sustained this law, by a systematic course of dictation and intimidation, to operate upon the Legislature. When before did Conventions assemble in the Capital, simultaneously with the Legislature, and pass resolves in relation to a measure before that body, denouncing all who should oppose that measure as recreant to their oaths and to virtue ! Such was the political action of the temper- ance Convention of last year which got up this obnoxious Act, and such has been their course at this session, to force the Legislature up to sus- taining the law. A high public officer, the District Attorney of Essex, was the instrument used to denounce all men in the Legislature who should not come up to the standard of the new creed in voluntary mor- als ; and he confes here as a witness to enforce the instructions of the Convention upon the Legislature : a Convention, Mr. Chairman, of pro- fessing Christian men, who did. not hesitate to pass a vote of censure upon the author of Christianity himself! for they impiously declared that it was immoral to manufacture or sell intoxicating liquor to be drank ; when they knew that the first miracle of the Saviour was to make intox- icating liquor out of water, to be drank at a feast ! * Neither did the Saviour seek to promote one good alone, as do the modern moral reformers who absorb all other benevolent objects in this war upon alcohol, in particular forms, and when used by particular class- es of men. The purest moral reformer the world ever saw, went about * It was said of the Pharisees of old. by him who spake as never man spake, — " The Son of Man came eating 1 and drinking, and ye say of Him, behold a gluttonous man, and a icine bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners; but wisdom is justified of her children." The modern Pharisees, who thank God that they are better than other men, (because they drink wine and try to enforce a law to prevent a laboring man tastinn- gin,) need not lay the flattering unction to their souls, that they swallow no alcohol. A letter from a French House, who had been applied to by a Boston firm to send some pure v.'ine, the freest possible fiom alcohol, was laid before the Committee, in which wai this statement : " We have not altered the prices of our Spanish wines, (three grape and two grape. ) The only difference between the two qualities is, that the first was reinforced with (en gallons nil, proof brandy per pipe, and the second with only six gallons." 96 doing good to all and denouncing none but hypocrites ; inculcating the doctrine of encouraging all the virtues, but above all, charity, and not persecution. It is this makes the perfect man. Contemplating but one vice and studying but one virtue, makes the bigot. Lastly, The supporters of this Act maintain it must not be repealed, because the women are for it. This statement is deceptive. The women, as they ought to be, are fur temperance. Without looking into the merits of a particular law, they desire to secure that end, and leave the means beyond moral influence, to the men, who us yet make the laws. Hence the thirty thousand females who have signed memorials for the law, are merely duplicates of the signatures of their husbands, fathers, and sons. 1 am pleased with this expression of their opinion, and I honor their motives. They ask the Legislature to suppress intemperance, if it can. They do not mean to ask for an unjust and arbitrary law to favor the rich and restrict the poor, and the effect of which will be to increase intemperance. They are sincere, but they are deceived. I warn these men, said Mr. H., who have drugged their women and children into this party conflict about laws, that if this Act be persisted in, the time will come when some of these women will upbraid them for the ruin of fathers, husbands, brothers, sons, brought about by the increas- ed intemperance, of which this contest and this law will be the cause. I rejoice, said Mr. II., that there is not a female signature against this Act. I am glad that the memorialists have not brought in their women and children, who might have trebled the names on that side. In view of the whole investigation, then, what is the conclusion for fair minds to arrive at ? Should a doubtful experiment be persisted in on a false, abstract theory, to sustain the new doctrine of prohibition; or should the settled maxim be again resorted to, that so long as the article and the appetite exist among us, wholesome regulation by law, and moral influences, are the only true promoters of temperance ? Would it not then, be the part of wisdom, of magnanimity, to admit the error of this hasty step in legislation ? to retrace that step ; to go back to wholesome regulation, and there remain, until an united commu- nity demand a change, or the evil ceases to exist, by common consent, which will he higher than all law. This Act, if continued in existence, must be enforced, or openly viola- ted. It can never be enforced, or if at all, only by a constant and bitter conflict. It cannot be violated, without doing more injury than would regulation and license. May not the memorialists, then, confidently hope, that the Committee and the Legislature, before insisting upon sustaining tiiio Act, will carefully deliberate, and wisely count the cost ? February 19. The sitting of the Committee was occupied by the closing argu- ment of Pei.eg Sprague, Esq., for the remonstrants, which has been published in pamphlet. The 20th was occupied by Franklin Dexter, Esq., in closing for the memorialists, which terminated the public hear- in ir. C2 MR. DEXTER'S CLOSING ARGUMENT FOR THE MEMORIAL. Mr. Chairman. By far the greater part of your time has been taken up by the Remonstrants, in stating the evils of which Intemperance is the cause. It was early announced to them by the memorialists, that upon this point there would be no controversy. But it realiy seems as if it were the design of the Remonstrants to drive them to this, as the battle-ground, by the extravagance of their statements. But the memoralists will not thus be di- verted from their object. The question they have submitted to the Com- mittee is simply whether this particular law involving a new principle of legislation is an expedient measure for the restraintof Intemperance. They will not, by entering into a controversy as to the extent of the evil, give their opDonents the advantage of assuming to themselves the name of the Tern- perance party — a name which indicates a division such as does not exist in the Commonwealth. But though this matter may pass without dispute, it is impossible not to notice the other proceedings of the Remonstrants, which seem to have been directed rather to excite than to enlighten the minds of the committee and of the public* I may safely say, that upon no other occasion has a com- mittee of this Legislature heard such violent denunciation of individuals, and personal abuse as has been poured out upon the most respectable of these memoralists by one of the opening counsel for the Remonstrants. If the in- dividual who used this language were an unaccredited volunteer in this cause, his want of decency would be unworthy of remark, but whatever be his own claims to consideration, he has stood here for hours, the acknowl- edged counsel and advocate of the Remonstrants, and his ribaldry has drawn out neither rebuke nor apology from those for whom he spake. Really, sir, itseems as if the memoralists were to be driven from the exercise of their mere constitutional right of petition by the fear of personal injury. Upon the simple question whether a particular law designed to promote a cause, of which they profess themselves to be friends, is or is not an expedient and constitutional exercise of power by the Legislature, the memoralists are not permitted to state in the most respectful terms their wishes and reasons without being assailed with opprobrious epithets and accusations. The memoralists come here in the most unexceptionable manner : they put forth in print the grounds of their petition, and they employ counsel to enfoice them, who certainly cannot be accused of having uttered a single personal remark, or made a single appeal to popular feeling. They come here call- ing themselves friends of temperance, and as such, asking for a repeal of this l"w because they think it a violation of the rights of individuals and dan- gerous to the common cause — and they are met by those who differ from them in their opinions, with derision and insult. Their pretensions to what they solemnly nssert to be their principles, are fiercely denied and derided ; they are insulted in this crowded Hall, by the most false and abusive 13 98 accusations. The privacy of domestic life is invaded, and even the sanctity of the grave is not respected. The living — the honored and venerable liv- ing, whom it has pleased Heaven to try with affliction, have been taunted with the infirmities of age ; and the dead who had lived a century unre- proached, and who might have passed into Heaven almost without a change, has been stigmatized as but a later victim to intemperance. Of these me- moralists, the poor are sneered at because they cannot write well enough to please the taste of the counsel, and the rich are ridiculed for their preten- sions of caring for the poor — Sir, was a great moral reform ever accom- plished by such means ? But not only have the Remonstrants attempted thus to excite popular in- dignation against the memoralists, but the most extraordinary measures have been adopted to apply an external influence to the deliberations of this Committee. We have seen three Temperance conventions held in the city during this hearing — held not in the regular course of the respectable societies that meet periodically on this subject, but specially called for the purpose of operating upon the decision of this Committee. Sir, I beg the committee, I beg the respectable portion of my opponents to consider how fatal is this sort of influence to freedom of debate and de- cision in a Legislature. The Jacobin Clubs of Paris were not more purely revolutionary in their character, whatever may have been the difference in their objects than these attempts to overawe the Legislature by strong ex- hibitions of popular feeling. I cannot but fear as well as deprecate the ef-, feet of such measures. I cannot compliment this committee by pretending to think them superior to their influence — no popular body can be superior to it. The strong voice of a multitude will alarm some and persuade others — The voice of a mob is easily mistaken for the voice of the people — and whatever may be the personal respectability of these individuals, or the purity of their motives — they are acting the part of a mob when they meet in such associations and anticipate in the language of vehement denunciation and resolutions the decision of this question. It is the spirit of a mob to oppose the force of numbers and of noise to that of reason. Sir, this Hall is open for all they and their Counsel have to say in favor of this law — Here the question is to be decided and here it ought to be heard and here alone. Your committee have listened with unexampled patience to all their evidence and arguments relevant and irrelevant. If they choose to be heard elsewhere and before assembled multitudes while this question is pending, what is it but invoking popular excitement to overwhelm the Committee? Why do they call great meetings together to resolve upon that which you alone can decide ! Sir, it is excitement that they seek — it is agitation — and for one, Sir. I do not believe in deciding great moral or political ques- tions by excitement and agitation. I believe it may be accomplished, but I do not believe in its usefulness or propriety. But, sir, let us come to the real question before the Committee. Is this particular law an expedient measure for the restraint of intemper- ance 1 The Memorialists ask for its repeal upon two grounds : because it is unconstitutional, because it is inexpedient. Up6n the first of these grounds, I shall not farther occupy the time of the Committee; the argu- ment has been fully and ably stated and needs not to be repeated. The consideration, of this question, belongs more particularly to a judicial tribunal, after a law has once been passed, and I sinll not pursue it fur- ther. But I will briefly state to the Committee what is more proper for their consideration, that grniiting the power of the Legislature to pass luZ ^w, it cannot consistently with the settled construction of the Con- stitution, Sue carrried into effect against the importer of ardent spirits, S9 and that thus limited in its operation it will be quite ineffectual for its purposes. The power to regulate commerce has been repeatedly decided to be exclusively vested in Congress ; it belongs wholly to Congress and not at all to the States. In the case of Brown vs Maryland, a law of that State was held to be void because it attempted to impose a tax on sales of imported merchandize by the importer. The power to tax, say the Court, implies the power to lay a prohibitory tax, and to prohibit the importer from selling, would be prohibiting the importation, and that would be an attempt to regulate commerce, which no State can do directly or indi- rectly. Now this was the case of a tax on the wholesale dealer, and the direct decision of the Court went no farther than the necessity of the case required. The question will now arise whether the same reasons do not prevent the States from prohibiting the importer from retailing the im- ported article : when the Court was in that case pressed by the argument that the construction adopted would prevent the states from regulating the internal trade of their own territory and from raising taxes upon the property of its citizens, the answer was, that when the importer had mixed up his goods with the mass of the property of the State, they then became subject to taxation and regulation by the State — and as an answer to a particular argument, it was stated that this would be the case if the importer should break up his packages, aad travel about with them as an itinerant pedlar — but no where is it stated by the Court, that by the mere breaking up of the packages, the importer's privilege is des- troyed. It being then settled that the States cannot prohibit the whole- sale of goods by the importer, because that would be a virtual prohibi- tion of importing, how is the retail sale by the importer to be distinguished and made subject to the power of the State ? Suppose a law were passed in express terms, prohibiting all importers from selling any goods by re- tail, can any one believe after the decision of the case of Brown and Maryland, and in view of the reasons of that decision that such a law would be constitutional 1 If as the Court says, the power to import im- plies the power to sell, does it imply only the power to sell by wholesale ! What ground is there for this distinction? A prohibition of the whole- sale trade would not necessarily and totally preclude importation, be- cause the importer could still retail — and so a prohibition of the retail trade would still leave the power of selling by wholesale, but the princi- ple is that the mporter shall not be prohibited from selling his goodsAs to the time and manner of sale, he is subject to all wholesome laws of regula- tion, but no law of prohibition can be applied to him ; to prohibit retailing is as much of an encroachment upon his privilege of sale, as to prohibit the wholesale ; either can be carried on without the other, but both are so far necessary to the freedom of commerce, that the State can no more prohibit one than the other. The true principle of the decision is found in these words — " when the imported article becomes mixed with the common mass of property in the State, then it becomes subject to State laws." Now when does imported merchandize become mixed with the mass of other property ? Not surely by merely opening the casks or boxes — it is still as distinctly the imported article as before. You cannot prohibit the importer from selling a box of sugar, you can- not tax him for the right to sell it. Now suppose he opens the box and sells the sugar by the pound from the box, can you prohibit him from doing that 1 Has he by opening his box, without removing the contents, " mixed them up with the mass of the property in the State ? " Surely it is as distinctly the imported article, though half of the sugar may have been taken out- If the power to import implies the power to sell, why 100 may he not sell it in part9 as well as in the whole I Or suppose the im- porter of a 15 gallon cask of brandy puts a spigot into the bottom of it and draws off the brandy for sale by the pint ; has this liquor that has never seen the light, been by the mere insertion of the tap, mixed up with the property of the State ? or is the pint that is drawn out for his customer, so mixed up by being drawn out from the cask that he can- not sell it ? It is plain that no such sophistry was intended to be used by the Court. The true principle of the case is, that the importer has acquired by the act of importing, a personal privilege to sell; he acquires under the act of Congress a paramount right to sell, subject to regulation, but not to prohibition by the State. What then is prohibition and what is regulation ? Requiring a license and a tax, was held in that case to be virtually a prohibition, and not a regulation merely, because all were permitted to sell, hut subject to a tax which might be increased until it amounted to a prohibition. But any state law which is fairly a law of mere regulation, like the old license law, may be applied as well to the impor- ter, as to the purchaser from him. The State has never parted with its right to regulate its own internal trade, but it has completely surrendered all power of regulating external commerce. It may therefore prescribe what rules it sees fit for the mode of conducting sales, as well by the im- porter as others, but it cannot prohibit or limit his right to sell that which the law of the United States gives him a right to import for sale. It may not always be very easy to distinguish the cases — because regulation may be made so strict as to amount to prohibition, but when a law is avowedly prohibitory in its object and intent, it is plain that it cannot be applied to the importer. Now the law under consideration is most unquestionably a prohibitory act. It contains a new and odious feature not to be found in any of the former Jaws, for it in terms, and absolutely prohibits the retail trade in spirit for drink. It prohibits it to all and under all circumstances. Upon this point indeed our adversaries are not agreed among themselves. One claimed this uovelty as a great merit in the law, and the other as strenu- ously denied it. We take no admission on this po nt, there is no need of it. The former laws distinctly permitted certain licensed persons to sell spirit at retail for drink, this law prohibits any and all persons from so doing. There is a clear clifference in principle. One law declares the trade lawful and licenses it : the other prohibits and punishes it altogether. It is idle to say that the principle is the same in both. A very feeble at- tempt has been made to assimilate them by stating the old law as a prohibition to all but the licensed persons. But let the gentlemen who use this argument adopt their own mode of illustration and see how the question will stand. Certain vices which I need not here particularly name, are now prohibited by law. Suppose a new law were passed licensing certain houses for the indulgence of them, would the gentleman say that this introduced no new principle ? would they consider the Leg- islature who should pass such a law of sanction and regulation as acting upon the same principles with their forefathers who denounced and pun- ished the same vice in every place and under every form ? I do not agree that the cases parallel, though they have been so stated in another part of the argument where they clearly are not so as I shall have occasion to show, but the difference between them does not apply to this particular question. To prohibit a practice altogether, and to permit it to certain licensed individuals, is equally a difference in principle of legislation, whether the practice be in itself a crime or not, but whether it be a crime or not, is a most effectual ingredient in the question of the expediency of its total prohibition. I need not pursue this argument. No one can 101 seriously doubt that this law presents an entirely new question of princi pie, if the quantity in which alone the sale is permitted, be admitted practically to operate, or to be intended to operate as a prohibition. The intent to prohibit makes the difference ; whether it is successful or not is immaterial to the principle. That the intention is not to regulate, but to prohibit, the drinking of ardent spirit, neither of the counsel has been uncandid enough to deny. Indeed the whole argument proceeds upon the supposition that it is so. The selection of fifteen gallons as the limit, clearly shows this, as that quantity is the least in which by the laws of the United States brandy can he imported. It was therefore the highest limit the Legislature could assume without coming in conflict with the right of the importer of the liquor, as settled by the Supreme Court of the United States. As far as they could go, therefore, without introdu- cing a distinction between different kinds of spirit, the Legislature has gone entirely to prohibit the retail trade. This, then, is a law of prohi- bition, while the old License law was no more a law of prohibition than the law requiring Auctioneers to be licensed, was a prohibition of auction sales. It attempts for the first time to prohibit the retail trade in spirits as drink, to all persons and in all places. And although the law should be thought, notwithstanding the other objections, to be constitutional, it is still inapplicable to the case of the importer. Now of what value is this law if every one can retail at pleasure who can import 90 gallons of rum from the West Indies, or 15 gallons of brandy from France ? But the difficulty does not stop here. Con- gress has the same exclusive power to regulate commerce between the States as with foreign nations, and that commerce may be carried on by land as well as by water. Following out the principles of the case of Brown and Maryland, any one who imports a barrel of New England rum from a neighboring State, by land or by water, may retail it at plea- sure. If the principle be, as stated, that to restrict the sale by the im- porter is an encroachment on the power of Congress, and that this priv- ilege continues until the property loses its distinctive character as an import, it is plain that any one may easily qualify himself to be a re- tailer. I am aware of the difficulties this doctrine may seem to involve ; but there would he on the other hand great difficulties in any other con- struction. If one State could prohibit the retail trade in the products of another State, they might in that way carry on the commercial warfare which the Constitution intended especially to prevent. Suppose that South Carolina should choose, in her zeal against the tariff, to exclude our cotton cloth from her territories, could she not virtually accomplish this by prohibiting the retail trade in them, if such a prohibition were not restrained by this construction of the Constitution ? But this con- struction prevents her from imposing any such prohibition on the import- ers, so that she could at most, only make it more inconvenient to obtain the goods by any law that she could pass. It would seem, therefore, not only that this privilege of the importer from another State comes with- in the principle of the decision, but that it is quite necessary to prevent the States from virtually legislating to exclude each others products from their respective territories. But, Sir, I do not consider the constitutional difficulties to be the strength of the memorialists case. The injustice and inequality of this law, and its utter inexpediency as a temperance measure, seem to me still stronger objections before the Committee. The memoralists contend that this law is unequal in its principle and its intent. It is one law for the poor and another for the rich. It makes the worst possible distinction, that of one who can, and one who can- 102 not afford to be intemperate. It denies it as a luxury to the poor and permits it, to the rich — instead of denying it to all as a criminal indul- gence. If a man may not buy a single gallon of spirit drink for why should he be allowed to buy fifteen gallons 1 The only auswer that can be given is, that it is more difficult to buy fifteen gallons than one, and that therefore spirit drinking will he restrained and diminished. But why, and to whom is it more difficult to obtain fifteen gallons I — Simply because the greater part of those who drink are too poor to buy the larger quantity- As to those who can buy it, it is no prohibition at all — to those who cannot, the prohibition is absolute. Is this equal 1 It is to be observed that this prohibition is not aimed at dram-drinking in the shop. A miniinum of a quart or a gallon would prevent this as well as, .one of fifteen gallons; but the design is to prevent its being bought and carried away. Now as fifteen gallons is a quantity that can be car- ried away without any great inconvenience, this law really operates in this particular only upon those who cannot pay or be trusted for fifteen gal- lons at a time. It prohibits all from drinking at the counter, but permits ihose to carry away liquor who can pay for it, and prohibits the same thing to those who cannot. As far as this law prohibits drinking at the counter, which is the great evil, in cities at least, it is equal to all. But so far as it restrains the buying to carry away, it takes the most odious and unjust distinction. It leaves to the rich sot unlimited liberty of in- temperance, while it prohibits the poor from the most moderate indul- gence. Now Sir, this is not regulation — it is a most unequal prohibition. Various examples have been put by the Remonstrants to show that this law is not more unequal than others ; but there cannot be found an in- stance in the whole statute book of such inequality. In the first place it was said that the old license law was as unequal as this because though all could buy under it, yet all could not sell-but the dis- tinction is very plain. The right of regulation is universally admitted, but there can be no regulation without restraint, and that restraint must be partial — all cannot be licensed retailers or auctioneers, but then all have an equal chance and right to be so. The rich man is not preferred to the poor man-bonds are required it is true which may be more inconvenient to the poor than to the rich man. But the object of requiring bonds is not to disable or discourage the poor from being retailers, but for the necessar/ security of the public against disorder. Then it is said that the Tariff is a law as unequal as this because it enhances the price of broadcloth so as to place it beyond the reach of the poor. Bat what inequality is there in this ? A!! duties and excises necessarily enhance the priceof the article to the poor as well as to the rich ; but to avoid this unequal operation, the higher qualities of it are taxed more in proportion than the lower. The poor man pays qu the coarse fabric which lie must wear with or without a tarhTaless rate of duty than the rich pays on his finer cloths. The rich pays a higher tax upon his dress than the poor man fully in proportion to its better quality. Nay, the very object ofthe tariff and its actual operation, has been by encouraging the manufacture ofthe coarser fabrics to reduce their price below what it could be imported for. Under its operation the poor man now gets a shirt for half what it used to cost him, and to enable him to do so the rich man pays an enhanced price for every article he wears. Every provision of the tariff is especially favorable to the poor. When gentlemen say there is no inequality in this law let them only apply it to some other arti- cle of consumption — Suppose a law made to prohibit the retail trade in cot- ton cloi't. Fifteen gallons of rum it is said costs $G, and we are asked where is the poor man that cannot find $6 to buy it with. 'Not an able bodied man in Massachusetts' it is said 'who cannot at pleasure purchase this quan- 103 tity.' Sir, this sum ol $6 will buy nearly a hundred yards of coiton shirt- ing, but would it be no hardship upon the '-able bodied" poor man to he retrained bylaw from buying less than 100 yards of shirting? Would $6 in that case be thought so very trifling a sum as to make the inequality nearly nominal ? "Not one of that class of able bodied poor" says the Counsel "would be disabled by this law from purchasing spirit." I do not wonder Sir that the poor ofother countries think this a land of ease and plen- ty, when the starving creatures hear my learned friend solemnly state that not the poorest laborer in Massachusetts but what has his pound ster- ling in his pocket to purchase spirit "at pleasure." I wish the fact was so as to the necessaries of life. This paltry sum of $6 that every able bodied man can spend "at pleasure" for rum, would relieve many a poor family in the state from want and nakedness. Understand me, Sir, I do not claim for the poor or for the rich the same facility for buying rum as for buying food and clothing. Tax it if you think it ought to be restrained, tax it heavily, if you please, but tax it proportionally — put the same tax on the poor man's N. E. Rum or Whiskey as on the rich man's Cognac and Jamaica. Give no facilities to the rich and impose no disabilaties on on the poor — Deal in your wisdom with the whole subject but deal equally to all. And if you will pass prohibitory laws prohibit every one alike. There is one more example of the supposed inequality ol the law, which has been dwelt on with great emphasis, as an argument for this ; it requires especial notice for the boldness of the language in which it was put forth, and for its utter unsoundness. I will state it in the language of the counsel whom I select as representing the opinions of the sounder portions of the Remonstrants. " Take even that desire which has been imparted by the Author of our Being, for the continuation of the species, not an artificial, but a natural and necessary appetite. As to this too, you give the law. What von permit is lawful, what you forbid is unlawful, and yon absolutely inhibit its indul- gence, unless a man will take to himself a wife to be supported, not fifteen years merely, but for life. Is this obstacle to indulgence equal to the rich and the poor? By the one it is easily overcome; to the other it is often insurmountable. And would these gentlemen ask you to deal out matrimony in smaller doses; to render it lawful for a man to take a wife for fifteen years, or fifteen days!" Again — " may you not restrain ap- petite wherever the good of society requiresit '? A wretch has an appetite for. the wife or daughter of the Remonstrants!" &c. I do not bke this topic as a subject of public discussion. I would, for the sake particularly of some whom I see among this audience, jr'Iadlv avoid it. But it has been repeatedly stated as an argument in favor of this law, that the brothel and the retail shops stood on the same ground as public evils. And more especially, as the argument is now put forward in its most, specious form, by the ablest counsel of the Remonstrants, it. must be an- swered in plain language. I take it. Sit, that those who use this last ar- gument, believe it sound, or they would not utter it Now what is it briefly stated ; just this, that you have the same right to restrain the drinking of spirits, that you have to restrain fornication and adultery — nay the language nsed, would as well include the crime of rape. The same right to restrain ! Then you may restrain by the same means; you may punish the one as well as the other. I do not mean to the same degree — but they are equally proper subjects of punishment. And this is the answer seriously given to the complaint that this law undertakes to regulate the appetite ? Why, what possible analogy is there between the two cases? Will such ex- travagant overstatements convince the sober minded people of this State ? Because you can hang the wretch that brutally violates your wife or your 104 daughter, can you fine and imprison the man that mingles a drop of ardent spirit with his water ? 1 know this law does not attempt to punish the drinking of spirit ; but the argument claims the right to do it — it puts it plainly on the same ground as to that right with the most attrocious crimes. And this argument has been stated here over and over again, in every variety of form, as if it would bear the severest scrutiny. But is there not this plain distinction between the cases, that one is a crime and the other is not ? But both, says the counsel, are appetites, and if one may be restrained by law, so may the other. Sir, are the appetite for crime and the appetite for food the same things 2 both are appetites — that is, both are desires, and the argvranent is that if one desire may be restrained so may another. Now Sir, is it nothing that the voice of God lias forbidden one, and that the other is a crime only, when made so by this very statute! — "What you permit is lawful, what you forbid is un- lawful." The law then is to be justified by itself — it first makes the indul- gence of appetite a crime, and then claims the right to punish it because it is a crime. Sir, there is a distinction between right and wrong established by higher authority than that under which you sit here, and the analogy that confounds the law of God and the law of the Legislature, is of very little value. As to the one the power ot the Legislature is simply declaratory so far as it points out the right and the wrong , as to the other it makes a distinction purely of its own. Fornication, adultery and rape have been de- clared to be crimes by the voice of God, and no legislation can make them lawful — restraint of these is not only the restraint of appetite, but is the re- straint of crime — the restraints of this law are restraints of appetite merely. • ;, Will the gentlemen compel me to state the true analogy of the two cases? and if I must offend against propriety in so doing, I do it not voluntarily, but because our adversaries have compelled me to it. The appetite tor spirit is compared with the sexual appetite, and the law which in effect prohibits the use of spirit to the poor, is said to be of the same charac- ter with that which prohibits to all the irregular indulgences of the sexu- al passion. Now Sir, having shown the dissimilarity of the cases, as stated by the remonstrants, let me show them what law relating to the sexes would be analogous to this relating to the use of ardent spirits. This law restrains the use of ardent spirits not before criminal — that is, it restrains all use of it. Suppose a law were passed restraining, not the irregular indulgence, but all indulgence of the sexual appetite. Suppose the Legislature should undertake on this subject to restrain that which God has permitted, and the regulation of which has been left to man's private discretion. That would be what the memorialists mean by a law in restraint of appetite — not only of an appetite lawful in itself, but of a lawful indulgence of it. Would the remonstrants acquiesce in such sort of legislation upon their domestic affairs 1 And if they complained of it, would they be satisfied with being told, that as the Legislature has the power to restrain the appetite for being drunk, and this is but another appetite, this may be restrained too ? Would they not see in such a case, the wide difference between a simple appetite and an appetite for crime ? Equally fallacious is the argument drawn from the institution of mar- riage, as it affects the rich and the poor. A prohibition of selling that quantity of spirit that comes within the means of the poorest, is com- pared to the law prohibiting fornication and adultery to those who can- not maintain a wife for life. We are tauntingly asked if matrimony as well as spirit should, for equality's sake, be dealt out in "smaller doses," that, the poor may enjoy it as well as the rich. Sir, this cannot have been as seriously said, as the occasion required. Do the gentlemen see nothing in the institution of matrimony but licensed lust 1 Do they not see 105 the difference between a promiscuous and beastly appetite, and the most refined passion of our nature ? Do they consider a wife as a mere para- mour for life? Do they count for nothing that sentiment, the tenderest of all associations, that binds hearts as well as persons together for life, and makes them dread death less for its own terrors, than because it divides them ? "Smaller doses of matrimony !" What can those think of matrimony who talk thus of it in argument — or even in jest, if they are jesting on so serious a subject ? Sir, they do not mean matrimony ; they mean something very different from it ; and when they ask if we would have smaller doses of that thing dealt out, we answer we would have it in no quantity whatever. They might as well ask us if we would have drunkenness dealt out in smaller doses ; our answer to that, would be, that Ave want neither drunkenness nor lust, but we want rational liberty and equality for all, in the indulgence of the appetite, that God has made it innocent to indulge in moderation ; and in both cases we want no legislative interference in the regulation of it» But besides the inequality of the law in prohibiting the sale of small quantities of spirit, it is also grossly unequal in permitting the sale of wine in any and all quantities. Wine is an intoxicating liquor as well as rum, but wine is the drink of the rich man, and rum of the poor. Wine is not, nor ever can be, in this country, the drink of the poor — our own soil produces none, and the charges of importation make it too dear for them. Now, Sir, this law leaves the rich man the unlimited use in the smallest quantities of his refreshment or his poison, if the gentlemen who lecture on this subject, choose to call it so, and denies to the poor that which alone he can afford to buy. In regard therefore to kind, as well as to the quantity permitted to be sold, it is unequal. A gentleman and a poor man may meet in a tavern at night, having travelled through the same storm during the day — cold, wet and weary — the gentleman calls for his glass or his bottle of wine, and the landlord is happy to serve him in any quantity. The poor man calls for his glass of rum and water, and is told that he cannot have less than 15 gallons. Now Sir, even if it were true that every able bodied man in the State can pay for 15 gal- lons, it would be rather a hardship to have to pay for that quantity when he was travelling and could not carry it away with him. If he cannot pay for wine he must be content with water, even when exposure to wet and cold seems to him to require something a little more stimulating. No doubt my friends, Dr. Pierson and Dr. Channing would tell him if they happened to be present, that water was much better for him, but even if he could have their advice for nothing, he might still think it a hardship that he could not take his own, as to what he should eat and what he should drink. Not even in case of sudden sickness, can a tav- erner sell a glass of spirit, and not even the temperance doctors will tell us that there are not cases in which life may be preserved by it. To pass one moment from the irregularity of the law, look at the hardships it may impose upon every one. We all know that in country towns there is no apothecary, and the physician often lives at a great distance from the tavern — now if a feeble person in travelling actually needs a little spirit even as medicine, this law effectually prohibits his getting it. Un- der such circumstances, who would not feel that it was intermeddling Avith that which ought to be left to every man's own discretion 1 I know of no law that will bear a comparison with it. It puts the whole community under guardianship, because the intemperate cannot be trust- ed with liquor. It denies to all the discretion of using that which non« but fanatics can deny to be often useful, because some will abuse it. It is inconsistent with the whole spirit of our political institutions. It 14 106 ► - Would be absurd anywhere, but here, it is ridiculous. A people that are trusted by their Constitution with the complete power of self-government, in politics, cannot be trusted with self-government in their diet. They may choose whom they will, every year, to make their laws, and admin- ister them, and may even change their whole original civil compact of government at pleasure ; and yet they cannot be trusted to buy what they choose to drink, lest they should drink too much of it. Sir, this cannot continue to be the law of this Commonwealth — the time will come, and very shortly, if it has not come already, when it will be seen to be a departure from the first principles of our government. I am not surprised that it should have been passed ; because when all know that what is done this year may be undone next, no one fears to try even the wildest experiments. Such a law could only be passed in the very wan- tonness of liberty. That it will be repealed is certain, but whether it shall be now taken away before it has united itself firmly with other val- uable laws, or whether it shall be suffered to remain until the whole sys- tem of legislation on this subject will go with it is a question of deep interest to the community. But supposing this State law to be unobjectionable upon the ground of inequality in its operation upon different classes, and looking at it merely as a measure for the promotion of temperanee, I will a?fc the attention of the Committee for a few moments to its probable effects. Remember, Sir, it has not yet gone into operation : this is made a reason against repealing it ; but, in my judgment, it is quite the contrary. After it has become the actual law of the land, there would be more rea- son for claiming for it what it advocates, call a fair trial — as yet it is no law at all, but it is to become such, unless sooner repealed, on the first day of May next. Repeal it now, and you have made no change in the legislation on this subject — no more than if the vote upon its passage had been reconsidered. Wait until next session, and you must meet all the evils of a change of legislation ; you will then have to yield to an ex- asperated opposition — to an open contempt of the law; and to the resist- ance and disagreement of juries, what you now deny to reason and re- monstrance It is an inexpedient law because it will not effect its purpose, and can- not be enforced. When I say it cannot be enforced, and when the Mayor • of the city told you it could only be enforced at the point of the bayonet, t is not meant that a few individuals may not be convicted on the evi dence of common hired informers — it is not meant that those will be res- cued by force ; but it is meant that nothing short of an armed police will put the law into effectual execution. For one convicted retailer hundreds will violate the law with impunity. See the difficulty of the case. In the first place, who will be witnesses against the offenders ? No one — -unless your temperance agents can train and discipline a band of spies and informers as standing witnesses ; will they do that 1 or will they degrade themselves to the dirty office ? Next, how can you expect a jury to convict under this law ? In such cases the jury are to judge of the law as well as of the fact — they have a right to judge of the consti- tutionality of the law as well as of its application. It would not only be the right but the duty of every juryman who should be satisfied that the law was unconstitutional, to return a verdict of not guilty, wht.tever might be the evidence. Jurors are sworn to return a" true verdict ac 7 cording to the law and the evidence. The constitution of th 3 United States is the supreme law of the land — next in authority to that are the statutes passed by virtue of it, and if this statute seems to him to be in conflict with any of the rights secured by those instru-' 107 ments, a juror has a right, and it is his duty to refuse to convict upon it. I do not mean that such a conclusion should be hastily adopted by jurymen — but they will be addressed with the same ar- guments you have heard here, and is it not reasonable to suppose that at least one man will be found on each pannel who will be willing to be convinced by them. Here are 20,000 memorialist who now declare opinion ! and one dissenting juror will prevent a conviction. Then that come a conflict between courts and juries — new and unconstituti will modes may be adopted to exclude those hostile to the law ; the monal ty of the law will be brought into contempt, and courts of justiceajes- become the scene of angry debate, and perhaps, in the end the judiciary will be sacrificed to the popular feeling. One thing is certain — opposi- tion to this law will increase instead of diminish, unless all violation' of it can be put down at once — If a contest can be carried on by the oppo- nents of the law, they will gain strength every day. Evil disposed per sons will rejoice in the scenes of disorder which it will create, and good citizens will be tired of a warfare that keeps the public mind in agita- tion. It is in vain for the remonstrants to arrogate to their own party all the respectability and virtue of the State, and to class all their opponents among the intemperate and the disorderly. Among the names in this memorial, are the best of our citizens — sober-minded, religious, and peaceable eitizens — men of property — men of influence. This is no cause in which such men will give their names for asking. The course of the memorialists is a responsible one ; it implies deliberation and con- viction — it commits the signer to an opinion that he cannot disavow — while on the other hand the remonstrance is put forward as the act of the " Temperance Party," and thousands of signatures may be obtained for such a paper from those who care nothing for the matter, but think there can be no harm done by being over-virtuous. Look at their peti- tion ; it bears the names of thousands of women — why, Sir, what can these women know of the expediency of this law 1 Good souls ! all they want is to have their husbands and brothers temperate, industrious men — but whether this will make them so or not they are as ignorant as children. When I say that this law cannot be enforced in the courts of justice, I speak of what will happen from a knowledge of what has happened. Some of your Committee remember the old embargo law, and the nu- merous prosecutions under it. That was an unpopular law, and many believed it an unconstitutional law, but the courts sustained it and would not allow its unconstitutionality to be argued to the jury — but, Sir, the juries would not convict under it. Verdict after verdict of not guilty, was pronounced in the face of the clearest evidence of the fact. The law totally failed of operation- — the sentiment of the people was against it, and the courts could not enforce it. Look too at the recent case of Abner Rneeland, tried three times before he could be convicted of the most obscene blasphemy ; the fact was not denied, but the law was argued to be unconstitutional and oppressive, and if he had not in- sulted public decency, as well as denied the existence of God, he never could have been convicted. Sir, the counsel has told us very emphatically, that the morality of a people cannot be maintained above the morality of their laws. It is equally true that laws cannot be maintained beyond the moral sentiment of the community. They rest upon that, and upon that alone for their support — the moral sentiment of a few enthusiasts will not do — nor of a mere majority — they must have the earnest support of the whole mass of good and intelligent men. When good and intelligent men are seriously 108 divided upon the expediency of a restrictive law, it cannot be expected to stand: and if gentlemen think there is not such a serious division on this subject, they greatly deceive themselves. Strong as the memorial is in good names, they do not see there one-half the strength of the oppo- sition to this law. A stronger influence exists in the silent, opinions of men whose age, office, and circumstances, prevent their names from ap- pearing here. The support of the law you hear enjoined in the most public manner. You have on one side of this question greetings in the market-place, and prayers standing in the corners of the streets, but you will feel on the other, the strong current of sober opinion revolting from these Utopian schemes of radical reform in morals by the terrors of the law. But suppose you can enforce it — that is, suppose you can sup- press all public violation of it ; will the cause of temperance be promot- ed by it? Will pauperism and crime disappear before this mighty en- gine of reform ? Sir, upon this point we have example as well as theory — we have facts that are better than all conjecture. By the unwarrantable and illegal con- struction put upon the law, authorizing the County Commissioners to license " as many" retailers as they thought the public good required, in certain Counties, these officers have undertaken to be more virtuous than the law, and have decided that the public good requires none at all. The consequence has been in those counties, just what this law proposes for the whole Commonwealth — complete prohibition of all retailing. And Sir, this Commissioners' law has been tolerably well enforced, except in the very large towns; much better than your law ever can be ; because it is a law enforced by men chosen by the people of the county for the very purpose — the clear will of the majority had been expressed in the choice of Commissioners, and the people know that the same question will be open at the next choice. They do not feel it as a law, but as a tempo- rary regulation always in their power to repeal , but even that law has been openly disregarded in New Bedford, where we are told that rum is retailed about the streets in a milk cart. But what has been the effect of this regulation during the three years it has existed in those counties ? Why, sir, we should not have dared to predict such a conse- quence : it has gone even beyond conjecture. No other sufficient ex- planation of the fact has been or can be given, but it is an indisputable fact, that in those counties where licenses were given, crime and pauper- ism have either diminished or at most increased, but about in the ratio of the increase of foreign population : while in those counties where the pro- hibitory system has prevailed, the system now urged upon us for the whole Commonwealth, crime and pauperism have made the most frightful advan- ces. There can be no mistake about this, the fact is not denied, it stands upon official returns. How is it accounted for, if it be not the legitimate consequence of this system ? They say it was the hard times : pray, which way did the hard times work 1 times were as hard in Boston as they were in New Bedford. Yet crime and pauperism increased in New Bedford, and diminished in Boston. It is said that the sea-board towns suffered particularly by the hard times, and that the prohibited counties all bor- dered on the sea. But again, sir, is not the county of Bristol a sea-coast county 1 And is not New Bedford a great sea-coast, commercial town ? Again, it is said that the influence of "Boston the great reservoir" poisoned the more virtuous counties. True, Boston did supply them with immense quantities of spirit. Incredible quantities were sent to Bristol County, and to taverners and retailers, to be used there in violation of the law. — But do the gentlemen think that if they subject the whole Commonwealth 109 to this restriction, some other " great reservoir" \viij not open ? If New Bedford can get spirit from Boston, cannot Boston get it from Ports- mouth, from Providence, or New York ? Again they account for it by saying that the general law of the land made it reputahle to drink, because it provides for licenses "for the public good." And do they think by this law to change the moral sentiment of the community. Do they think men drink rum "for the public good" when the law declares it to be so and will leave it off when the Legislature changes its mind on the subject. Really, sir, I have no faith that our community is so docile and ductile to the various changes in speculative morality brought about by Lectures and Conventions. I believe this is a question on which they will judge for themselves, be your laws what they may. Another reason assigned for the backsliding of the Temperance County of Bristol is, that the same general law being administered differently there, and in other counties " has caused a feeling of restlessness, or perhaps resentment to some extent unpropitious to its fair influence." Sir, I was much struck with the admission involved in this explanation. The people of Bristol, it seems, drink from restlessness and resentment, because they are forbidden to do it by law, while people in other counties are permitted to do it : And when you have forbidden the people of the whole State, will not they drink from restlessness and resentment ? What difference does it make that other counties have been allowed to retail, while the people of Bristol by their own act have prohibited it ? Are they angry with themselves? with the fair majority of their own county ? and will they not be as angry with you and with members of other counties, who impose this restriction upon them by law ? Sir, I doubt not the truth of what the gentleman states — that restlessness and resentment under re- straint have aggravated the evil of intemperance in that county, and so it will be every where if this law prevails. When it was first said before the Committee, that under this law people would drink the more from a principle of opposition, the argument was derided, drinking from prin- ciple, was thought too ridiculous to be mentioned. But the fact was known to the Memorialists to have been so, and now the counsel for the Re- monstrants avows it to have been so in their favorite county. The peo- ple of Bristol are angry, because the people of Suffolk can buy liquor while they cannot, and they drink twice as much out. of spite. Just so, sir, it will be elsewhere. Opposition to the law will beget toleration of intemperance, and fifteen gallon kegs will be emptied and filled again in drunken carousals over this impotent attnmpt at restriction. But when we object to this law, we are asked for a better. Intemper- ance, it is said, is increasing: what shalll e done? Sir, this brings me to the last topic with which I have to trouble the Committee. When gentlemen ask us what shall be done. We ask them to look at what has been done, one of the greatest moral reformations that the world ever saw has — no, sir, I must change the word — had already been brought about upon the subject. Within the last twenty years an incred- ible change had been wrought in the habits of the people of this State — Intemperance, from being the peculiar vice of our people, had become ex- ceedingly rare. Upon this all are agreed, that a mighty change had been wrought. It is about as weil agreed that within two or three years the course has been the other way. Now what causes produced these two opposite effects ? What causes were at work, and apparently producing them ? The reformation was brought about wholly by a system of ear- nest and persevering appeals to the public opinion, without the least as- sistance from the law. Societies, public meetings, addresses, and trav- elling lecturers. These were the agents that were employed to bring it no about — it was accomplished wholly by what in this discussion has been called moral suasion. Within a few years an increasing rigor of law has been called in aid of this benevolent design, and the measures of moral suasion have been relaxed. I do not think it necessary to bring facts in proof of these statements — every body knows their truth. I wish to make no invidious remarks; but every one who knows by whom and how the measures of the temperance party are now carried on, and who remember by whom and how the reform was begun and carried for- ward will percieve at once how much mere moral influence on this sub- ject has declined. The concentrated voluntary action of individ- uals has subdivided into mere organization. The agents who were before the humble ministers of others, have become the chief of the synagogue ; they find it easier to preside and make reports in conventions than to travel about like the mild and pious Hildreth, rea- soning upon temperance and beseeching men to be saved. The Tem- perance men have become a party — and the party has become numerous, strong and well organized ; and like all men in power, they love the ex- cercise of power. They have become impatient of opposition, and they would wield the thunder of the law to put it down. Sir, the people feel the difference — they see too much of pride, too much of arrogance in all this. The temperance lectures arc deserted — public opinion has lost its tone and its current has turned backward. It is true, it is alarmingly true, that Intemperance has increased, and its increase may be traced back to the time when moral suasion gave way to legislative compulsion. If I were called on to state what was the first error committed in this cause, I should unhesitatingly point to the pledge of total absti- nence required of the members of temperance societies. At t hat point persnsion was first exchanged for compulsion. 1 remember well, sir, and I was in a situation to feel the effect of that measure. I believe that very many retired from all open connexion with the cause, when they found that this attempt was made to bind their consciences. They felt that it put an end to all voluntary action, that each man was to be a spy upon his neighbor, and that a connexion with a temperance society af- ter this pledge, gave to it an inquisitorial power over its members. They felt justly that the abstinence that was compelled by a vow would cease to be a virtue — it brought it down from the sublimity of a voluntary sac- rifice to the paltry fear of being caught in breaking a promise. "IVo, not an oath ; if not the face of men, The sufferance of our souls, the times abuse, If these be motives weak break off betimes — Unto bad causes swear Such creatures as men doubt — but do not stain The even virtue of our enterprize, To think that or our cause or our performance Did need an oath." If the gentlemen now ask us in earnest what shall be done, we say to them, retire from the lobbies of the Legislature — let the law be restored to what it was when this State was as remarkable for temperance as it bad before been for intemperance. Repeal your pledge of total abstinence. Give up your ostentatious city conventions whose influence never reaches the poor creatures that most need your good offices, but only exhaust in ex- penses the means that would enable you to send out bumble, pious and warm hearted preachers of temperance. Go back to that moral suasion under which this reform grew up and flourished ; abolish all attempts to orce men to be temperate by fear of punishment, or by the still more Ill futile experiment of biding from them the intoxicating liquor. Respect the rights and liberties of the temperate, as well as the necessities of the intemperate. It is not true, as your counsel has told you, repeating your own words, that "moral suasion has done its office"; it has not "carried this reform as far as it can go without a change of the law," Sir, moral sua- sion got tired before it had half done its office — it became satisfied with the wonders it had done, and too indolent to work longer itself, it turned over its unfinished duties to the hands of the law. I defy the proof that earnest, humble and affectionate persuasion has ceased to prevail with the intemperate as much as it ever did. The misfortune is, that we have less of the means employed to produce the effect. But if moral suasion could not carry the reform farther, it would have been well employed in maintaining it where it was ; and now to restore it to that position, would be reward enough for all the efforts of the Remon- strants. It will be time enough for them to say that moral suasion has done its office when they have restored what by its neglect they have al- lowed to fall into decay. Even then, sir, we would cheer them on to far- ther exertions in the use of the same means; and when they find those means — the only means their Master used, when his disciples would bave called down fire from Heaven, — fail to carry the work farther, they may content themselves with the reflection that they have done all they can, and their successors will find full employment in maintaining what they have done. Mr. Chairman. I have but one word more to say. Tins Law will ee repealed. I feel tlie strongest conviction that the people will not bear it. It is an encroachment on the rights of the sober and of the temperate. I believe I am as willing as most men to submit to the laws, — but I cannot acquiesce in this. I feel it as an encroachment on my own rights, and 1 never can cease to oppose il. Personally as well as representing the inerr.or- alists I protest against it. I protest against it as an unwarrantable restric- tion upon the habits of private life. I proles', against its inequality as it operates on different classes of the community. I protest against it as tending to introduce perjury and contempt of the laws, and as requiring for its execution the base and corrupting instrumentality of ?pies and common in- formers. I protest against it as worse than worthless as a temperance meas- ure ; as an abandonment of all regulation and of the moral means that had already wrought a wonderful reformation throughout the land, and the sub- stitution of a system of prohihition and force. I protest against it as ab- surd in theory and impracticable in execution. Sir. it will be repealed. The question is only whether it shall be done now when a wholesome Jaw of regulation will take the place of it, or hereafter when the public mind has been inflamed by opposition and resistance. You have now (he whole subject in your hands. 1 beseech you, let it not pass out of them until the work is done. Note — The Committee have now been able to furnish the public with a full and correct report of all the evidence on both sides, and of the arguments on one side, be- fore the Legislative Committee. They did not feel authorized, from the importance of the subject, to omit any portion of it, and this has caused the delay in its preparation and publication. They ask for these pages a candid consideration, and upon that they are content, to rest the issue in every fair mind. The argument was conclusive with the Committee who heard it, so far as regulation against prohibition is concerned, for they repealed the former and rejected the latter, in their bill. Another Legislature, it is believed, will be free to act upon this great question, with wisdom, candor and forbear- ance. . University of California SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 305 De Neve Drive - Parking Lot 17 • Box 951388 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90095-1388 Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed. UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILIT A A 000 230 869 P5V M-Vfy M7A1N lOS-ANG BVM jii tivM ^^\ u ifft ii 1 ^">r— u fHMfflWgffl^P^Kffl] .■ ■" : ■' ;■ ; ! ■ • v; Mi M | H , ml | '■■'■■"■'.! m ■',■'.' (hra v.-u, v BSD ■. illil^^r !i:;:; lii^p ; ^ ;; " ;;;::;;:;i::: _JHH n' .""' ulilHUHK IIP QuoST ' ■. : V'.. • 'l" : ;'l ''W- BBSS ffijffl Vl-'M'^"'" iiiiiiiiii SRfiK^BHBfiBM lfl&Nr mmm $MMrafi«S WB& M MifiSBfllSnfi inBHiB n iWJPWwi »OTc$H i ,;c:";'"' ; : ;^"'i' &&$ '•.'■■,V,*.,,),:j!:,'-l;. : v - .',;i.l, ".!.!." f;,'.' ' •■" jviiyi'i'it';':;', tOgS ■:,'.,!.: i'". $51 '■T''iiVi K, wmmmmmattr Univers: Soutt Libr ttiti» IflMMftH? Mf" 1