The Mountain Sentinel

THE ANTI-LIQUOR LAW.

The Senate of this State has passed the first section of a bill "to prohibit the sale and manufacture of intoxicating drinks," which is similar in substance to the Maine Liquor Law. Whilst we are opposed to the passage of any Law by our State Legislature which determines as to what we shall eat and drink, we would also be glad to assist in any measure calculated to drive from our midst the evil of intemperance, provided it does not interfere with the rights of property of either a majority or minority. The New York Courier and Enquirer contains the following constitutional argument against the law:

Chief Justice Taney never hazarded his judgment in declaring unconstitutional the Law, as literally defined, now in operation in Maine. The Federal Constitution expressly provides that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons and things to be seized." The Law of Maine requires no such oath or affirmation. On the contrary, it is made the duty of the mayor, alderman, or other municipal officer of the town, to proceed upon this mission of search and seizure at the instigation of malice or suspicion, and without any legal obligations or restraint whatever.

The Federal Constitution stipulates "that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation," nor shall a criminal "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Maine law enacts that "no action of any kind shall be maintained or in part, for intoxicating or spirituous liquors sold in any other State or county whatever, nor shall any action of any kind be had or maintained in any court in this State for the recovery or possession or intoxicating of spirituous liquors or the value thereof." These palpable contraventions of Federal rights cannot be overlooked; but whether the advocate of the Maine Law recognised the binding force of the Constitution, is another question.

But again: The Constitution declares that "in all criminal prosecutions"-and the Law of Maine makes the selling of liquor a crime- "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and District within which the crime shall have been committed." The Law of Maine guarantees to the criminal no such right as an impartial jury trial, or any jury trial, except in cases of appeal. The criminal is first tried by the judge or magistrate, who is arbiter of his guilt or innocence, and on this magisterial decision, the "life, liberty, and property" of the defendant depends. This is a direct infringement of the Constitution; but the act goes further, and excludes from the jury on appeal cases, all persons engaged in the traffic of liquor, and even those who are under the ban of suspicion. How then can a jury be impartial, which is made up entirely of ex parte elements?

The Federal Constitution further stipulates, that excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor shall cruel and unusual punishments be inflicted.

The law of Maine makes the servant of a seller of liquor equally culpable with the master, no matter under what circumstances his conduct comes in conflict with the act. He cannot have no appeal, neither has he redress. He cannot have his case disposed of by a jury, because of the penalties and risks by which his suit is surrounded. He is met at every step by a fine, the threat of imprisonment, or ultimate certainty of a prejudiced panel against his appeal; and for these reasons, one servant out of ten thousand could scarcely succeed in obtaining the necessary bail and collateral securities required by the act.