66

SECOND REASON OF REMONSTRANCE.

67

facture, traffic, and consumption. Under this law, which has been enacted by legislative authority, and effectually executed by the people of a free State of the American Confederation, no man can manufacture alcoholic poison, except for necessary uses, for which the law makes provision. No man can traffic in the article by selling, buying, transporting, importing, keeping on hand, consuming, or using, except for necessary purposes, for which the law makes provision. No man can find the article to use as an accustomed beverage," for none of the poison is allowed by law to exist on the premises of any man in the State, except those legally appointed to keep the article for legal uses. All existing intoxicating liquors, not included in legal exceptions, are, by law, denounced as contraband commodities, under legal sentence of utter destruction. And destroyed they are, ipso facto. Consequently, no inhabitant of the State of Maine can claim a legal right to make, buy, nor sell, directly nor indirectly, for "customary or common drink," any of "the fruits of the earth," after having been manufactured into the poison of alcohol.

And hence the inhabitants of the State of Maine are under legal prohibitions to manufacture or traffic in the article of intoxicating liquors, on penalty of the DESTRUCTION of the article, if found in their possession; and also the penalty is accompanied with the legal power of fines and imprisonments for repeated and aggravated offenses by breach of the law. And what is, or may be considered of paramount importance, the above described law was devised, enacted, and has hitherto been faithfully executed, for the express purpose of destroying a wicked, lucrative

68

SECOND REASON OF REMONSTRANCE.

CRAFT, the gain of which enriches a portion of the community at the expense of the poverty, degradation, wretchedness, and destruction of millions of others of mankind, while, by a strict observance of this law, none of the human family will ever be poisoned to death with intoxicating liquors, nor made wretched by their woes and concomitant evils during life.

Another point set up in the second remonstrative reason, is an alleged contravention of obvious principles and provisions, both of "Federal and State constitutions." What the principles and provisions are which are alleged to be contravened, are not named in the reason. Suppose, then, the object intended in the allegation to be the CLAIMED "RIGHT" to manufacture, traffic in, and consume all kinds of intoxicating liquors, without legal restraint or molestation; still the contravention alleged is without foundation. The united opinion of the Supreme Judges of the United States Court has decided this case, that each and every State of the American Union, has the undoubted right to enact statutes in all cases like the Law of Maine in question, irrespective of any contravention of the Federal Government, or other State constitutions. Their words, in answer to an important appeal on the subject in question, were as follows—

Chief Justice TANEY: "Every State may regulate its own internal traffic, according to its own judgment, and upon its own views of the interest and well-being of its citizens. I am not aware that these principles have ever been questioned. If any State deems the retail and internal traffic in ardent spirits injurious to its citizens, and calculated to produce idleness, vice, or debauchery, I see nothing in the

SECOND REASON OF REMONSTRANCE.

69

Constitution of the United States to prevent it from regulating and restraining the traffic, or from prohibiting it altogether, if it thinks proper."

Mr. Justice MCLEAN: "The acknowledged police power of a State extends often to the destruction of property. A nuisance may be abated. It is the settled construction of every regulation of commerce, that no person can introduce into a community malignant diseases, or any thing which contaminates its morals, or endangers its safety. Individuals in the enjoyment of their own rights, must be careful not to injure the rights of others."

Mr. Justice CATRON: "I admit as inevitable, that if the State has the power of restraint by licences to any extent, she has the discretionary power to judge of its limit; and may go to the length of prohibiting sales altogether, if such be her policy; and that if this court can not interfere in the case before us, neither could we interfere in the extreme case of entire exclusion."

Mr. Justice DANIELS said, of imports that are 66 cleared of all control of the government," "They are like all other property of the citizen, whether owned by the importer or his vendee, or may have been purchased by cargo, package, bale, piece, or yard, or by hogsheads, casks, or bottles. If, then, there was any integrity in the objection urged, it should abolish all regulations of retail trade, all taxes on whatever may have been imported." In answering the argument, that the importer purchases the right to sell when he pays duties to government, Mr. Justice DANIELS continues to say: "No such right is purchased by the importer; he can not purchase from the government

70

SECOND REASON OF REMONSTRANCE.

that which it could not insure him-a sale independently of the laws and polity of the State."

And Mr. Justice GRIER said: "It is not necessary to array the appalling statistics of misery, pauperism, and crime, which have their origin in the use or abuse of ardent spirits. The police power, which is exclusively in the States, is alone competent to the correction of these great evils; and all the measures of restraint or prohibition necessary to effect the purpose, are within the scope of that authority. All laws for the restraint or punishment of crime, lie at the foundation of social existence. They are for the protection of life and liberty, and necessarily compel all laws on subjects of secondary importance, which relate only to property, convenience, or luxury, to recede, when they come in contact or collision."

"For this reason, quarantine laws, which protect public health, compel mere commercial regulations to submit to their control. They seize the infected cargo, and cast it overboard! These things are done, not to interfere with the regulations of Congress, but because police laws for the preservation of health, prevention of crime, and protection of the public welfare must, of necessity, have full and free operation, according to the exigency that requires their interference. If a loss of revenue should accrue to the United States from a diminished consumption of ardent spirits, she will be the gainer a thousand fold in the health, wealth, and happiness of the people."

"Thus all the judges of the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed and corroborated the decisions of each subordinate State court, that the entire control of the sale

SECOND REASON OF REMONSTRANCE.

71

of intoxicating drinks is within the legitimate province of the State legislature. And this control is not limited to any mere regulations or partial restrictions, but extends to the entire prohibition, whenever the legislature of any State think such legislation essential to the public welfare."-Extracts from the New York Comet.

Now, let this legally-settled, constitutional fact, be applied to the very existence of the Liquor Statute of Maine, by a logical, incontrovertible conclusion, thus: If the constitutional police laws of each and every State of the American Confederate Union, were not intrinsically and necessarily sovereign and independent in the uncontrolled right of their formation and designed execution, as statutes for the preservation of health, prevention of crime, promotion of public morals, and encouragement of virtue, irrespective of any confederate national controlling power; why, then, were not objections made to the enactment of the statute Liquor Law of Maine? That there were no such objections made, and legally ratified against the enactment nor execution of the Liquor Law of Maine, which is now in successful operation, is demonstrative proof that the alleged remonstrative reason, in this case, is totally fallacious, and without foundation. And hence, all alleged contravention, or implied encroachment of the remonstrative claims of the "natural and indefeasable RIGHT" to manufacture and traffic in alcoholic poison, evidently falls under the control and condemnation of police statute law, to be abandoned as a business liquor-craft monopoly, for the accumulation of wealth, at the enormous expense and inevitable result of all the concomitant woes, degra