THE MAINE LAW.

New Zealander, Volume 10, Issue 882, 27 September 1854, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE MAINE LAW.

ITS HISTORY AND RESULTS, (From Tail’s “ Edinburgh Magazine.'') [The Maine Law, as adopted in Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode island, Vermont, Michigan, Arc. New Brunswick Anti Liquor Law. Maine Liquor Law Tracts, VV. Tweedie, VZ7Strand. Journal ami Reports of American Temperance Union, Mew York. Annual Reports of the Mayor of Portland. Eighth Annual Report of the Ministry at large in Lowell, Melicra, Second Series, edited by Viscount Ingestrie, Parker, London. Address of the United Kingdom Alliance for the total and immediate suppression of the Liquor Traffic. Manchester.] It is an interesting sign of the times, that amidst much of political excitement public attention, during the last few years, lias been steadily directed towards questions of social ethics, which we should he glad to see still more vigorously pressed upon the consideration of people of this country. Independent of the agitation for parliamentary reform, itself involving many others, the great problems of public education, sanitary reform, and emigration, have occupied no small space in the discussion of our public men ; while, from the other side of the Atlantic, there has been wafted the noise of an agitation so intense and so absorbing in its social importance as to awaken unusual attention and response here. The proceeedings adopted in many and now under discussion in all, the States of the Union, with regard to the traffic in intoxicating liquors, are 100 momentous in their purpose and results to fail in arresting the sympathy and interest of all British philanthropists. The Dnhj News, of March 15th, of the present year, in an able article calls the attention of its readers to this “ deeply interesting" transatlantic experiment, and the late visit of Professor and Mrs. Stowe lias contributed largely to diffuse a knowledge of the character and bearing of American legislature on this matter among all ranks and classes. Throughout the United States, as in Great Britain, the system of regulation by license lias resulted in extreme and complete dissatisfaction, and it would appear that the whole of the Union is in a state of transition from this utterly inadequate law of regulation to a law of entire and immediate prohibition. The principle of such a law seems first to have been admitted by the government of the United States in l!i.'H, In that year, during the presidency of General Andrew Jackson, a law was passed “ for the protection of the Indian Tribes," directing the United States officers to seize and destroy, without Judge or jury, all intoxicating liquors introduced for sale into tiie Indian country. This law was universally and rigidly enforced. No que-tion was raised of its justice or constitutionality, nor lias any remuneration been made or demanded for liquor thus destroyed The law in its operation commended itself to the judgment of enlightened statesmen, but the principle was not regarded as applicable to the people of individual states. It is true an agitation was carried on throughout various states with this view ; but for some time it commanded but indifferent success. Several states, however, Connecticut the first, in 1(134, obtained the privilege of annually voting on the question “license," or “no license and in many instances negatived the traffic by large majorities- Great inconveniences, however, naturally arose from this continual appeal to party effort, which left the question always unsettled. In the State of Maine still more encouraging signs presented themselves, until after many severe contests at the ballot box and violent debates in the legislature, a prohibitory law was passed by large majorities in both houses, hearing dale IB4C.

But it failed. The snake was scotched but not killed. The law had no power for the destruction of the liquor, but enforced its provisions by means of fines, and the Maine liquor law reformers found that in this law they had fallen into an unfortunate mistake. They began to see that no compromise could safely be made with such a foe, and that timid or wavering tactics were impossible if they were to hold their ground. The. law exasperated some, rl satisfied none. While needing for its support and efficient working, at least the respect of the whole community, it was found insufficient to secure its own object. It was evaded on all sides. The rurnseilers sold, secretly if they could, openly rather than not all, paid the penalties, and continued their business The law was enforced, but the intoxicating drink remained. Riots and turbulence, ensued, which brought on the reformation sought to be effected. The Maine law of T!U6 failed because it was not thorough. .Still enough good was accomplished to encourage the supporters of the law to go forward and rectify the mistake they had committed; the next contest Was to he final, the summary power must be obtained, The principle of suppression retained its hold on the majority of the citizens, and especially had it recommended itself to the poor weak drunkards, the victims of the temptation.* Under the leadership mainly of the Hon. Neal Dow. of Portland, an agitation was commenced which aroused all the desperate energies of the *• spirituous’ party. The last struggle was made in the elections of RJ4D, when after b hard light the snppressionists triumphed. In lltfd, by an average majority of two to one, the law was passed, which hss since maintained and increased its popularity, and under the title of the “ Maine Law,” has given its impress, to the policy of every other state of the Union.

A natural question arises in this country on the statement of these facts: “What is the Maine law ?” It is “ an art to suppress drinking houses ami tippling shops,” and its provisions are simple and effective. Wherever intoxicating liquor is found under circumstances which justify a belief that it is intended for sale it is impounded, and if on investigating the suspicion is confirmed, the liquor is destroyed. Every town or district is allowed to appoint an agent for the purpose of supplying whatever may be required for medicinal manufacturing, nr artistic purposes; and so far as has appeared at present, an ample supply for these purposes has thus been obtained. The following extract from a speech delivered by Professor Stowe, at the last annual meeting of the “ Scottish Temperance League,” will be read with interest in elucidation of this matter; —“ What is the Maine Law ? It is an A:t to put an end to traffic in intoxicating drinks among the people. It has nothing to do with a man’s own private affairs ; it has

nothing to do with the interior of any man’s family : any man, wherever he can find liquor, if he chooses may purchase it, and bring it into his own family and use it there if he likes—the law does not touch it or him. It considers every mans house his castle, and if he has a mind to drink in the bosom of his family, it does not take hold of him : it leaves him free in that respect. Hut if any man docs bring intoxicating liquors into the State for sale, if he even gives it away, and takes something else to evade the law, what does the law do ? It takes all his rum away and throws it on the ground. It does not touch his pocket or person, but it says, ‘ \ou are not a fit person to have lire possession of intoxicating drink, and we shall take it away. If a man makes solemn oath that he will not sell, and does not intend to sell any of that spirit, it leaves him unmolested. If alcohol is introduced for the arts and manufacture—and we know it to be necessary in many of the arts—it is not touched. If it is kept for medical purposes, like opium, calomel, or any other article of that kind, to be used and prescribed by a physician, it is not touched. In every town there are agents appointed by the town, and paid by the town, for the sale of alcohol for these purposes—manufacturing and medical—but they are under oath and heavy lo ids to sell it fcr no other purposes. The certificate of a. respectable physician is sufficient to authorise its sale for medi cal purposes, and the oath of a manufacturer is required for its sale to a manufacturer. And to prevent the ctfects of monopoly, the agent has not the profits of the sale: the article is sold at cost, and the community or the township receives all the profit. The agent acts for the township, and not for any iiidi% ulna!.

“ Sin hj is the substance and purpose of the law.” Hut the spirit which in Maine had carried on this agitation to a successful issue had spread to other states. in Vermont, particularly, the annual universal suffrage votes on the license question, as already noticed, had been productive of such results —in two instances a majority of more than 10,0(10 for no license, that in 1850 the legislature of the State took up the subject again, and in 1852, passed a prohibiting law now in force. It would, of course, carry us far beyond the limits of our present article, were we to follow out in detail, however briefly, the agitation as it arose and was carried on in the various j states- The following statement of dates must be sufficient, j The Maine Law was passed by the legislature of that State in May, 1851, was approved by the Governor on the 2nd of June, , and first enforced at Bangor on the 4th of July in the same year, that day being the anniversary of American independence. In March, 1852, a similar law was adopted by the Territory of Minnesota; on May 7th, 1852, by the State of Rhode Island; on May,22nd, 1852, by the State of Massachussets; on the 20th December. 1852, by the Legislature of Vermont; ami in a few months af’er by the legisla ire of Michigan. In both these last instances the time when the 'aw was to come into operation was submitted to a vote of the people, and the result, in both cases has been the triumphant affirmation of the Act, and its immediate and unconditional adoption. In Michigan especially, the majority just declared is most impressive, and in Vermont the large towns have been unanimous in their decision. There is no longer any doubt that, with slight modifications, the Maine i.aw will gradually be adopted by all the States. In New V'ork, the Law, carried in one of the houses of legislature, was lost in the other by a majority of only two. In Connecticut the Law was lately lost by eight majority ; in Wisconsin, by one vote. In Pennsylvania the agitation is powerful and popular, while in some of the more southern states, as Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, and Delaware,! the principle has been more or less acted upon, while a strong feeling is arising in favour of the whole Law, and nothing but the Law. Judging from private as well as publ.c sources of information, we in this country have little idea of the intensity of public sentiment in America on this question It has penetrated even the gloom of the Slave States, gilding with a ray of light the dark cloud which broods over those delicious, though unhappy lands. «• The project,” says the Hon. Neal Dow, in private correspondence, •• is now fairly before trie Legislatures of New A ork, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey. Maryland, and Ohio. There is not the slightest probability of repeal, and the principles of the Bill will ere long be adopted by all our Slates.’’ Throughout the States of its enactment, with the exception of the city of Boston, the Maine Law has been well enforced and cheerfully submitted to. No reaction has taken place, the Law has been strengthened where weak, and has gradually gained in popular respect and acceptance. Constitutional difficulties have been raised, but have been settled without disorder' the main legal question being regarded as set at rest by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the M .»sachusetts and New Hampshire case in 1845. In Boston, which we have just excepted, the Law was defeated in its operation by unfavourable municipal authorities, who granted an unusual number of licenses immediately prior to the operation of the act, which licenses having been then legally granted, were held good, any subsequent law notwithstanding- In this city, however, it is expected that before long the enforcement of the Anti-Liquor Law will be carried out.

It is worthy of note that the opponents of the measure have yet been supplied with no cause of offence, by any disturbance of sufficient importance to call for any remark. It is, however, to the social results of these legislative experiments that we must look with the greatest interest.

Have the objects achieved proved worthy of the enthusiasm and energy bestowed on their accomplishment ?—or has the Maine Law of 1351, like its half-brother of 1840’, resulted in disappointm cnt an d failure ? On this point we will give in evidence, and without comment the authoritative reports of the people and stare officers themselves. Bearing in mind the character and requirements of the population thus described by the Hon. Neal Dow—“Agriculturists chiefly, many fishermen and seamen, a few manufacturers. all classes given to the use of strong drink, which occasioned a great amount of poverty and suffering’’—let us ask* Whst has the Law done for Maine? “ I never,’’ says Professor Stowe, “ saw a Law that operated so beautifully, and vindicated itself so nobly, as this Law does.” Of the practical efficiency of the Maine Law, in its present state, there can bo no doubt. Referring to the Annual Report of the Mayor of Portland, 1352, we find that, while prior to the passing of the law, there were in that city at least 3nn to 400 rum-shops of all grades, at present there is not one. Nor have these houses been replaced as in 1340 by secret or hush-shops, drunkenness continuiug as before. We find from the tame report that, notwithstanding increased vigilance on the part of the police, the decrease in the number of parties committed for drunkenness has been equal to threefoul tbs of the entire number. The various statistics, as given, are as follows : House of correction committals for intemperances from June Ist, 1350, to March, 1831, 40; from June 1851, to March 1832, 10. The Maine Law was enacted June 2nd, 1851. From the gaol returns we find committed for drunkenness and larceny (in these returns the two offences are not separated), from June, 1850, to April, 1851,279; for corresponding period of Maine Law operation, 1351—52, 03. Committed to the watch-house, 1350—51, 431! same period, 1811—82, 180. Similar results are found inall the various returns. As might be expected, this great decrease of intemperance has been accompanied by corresponding decrease in crime and pauperism. Accordingly; on the authority of the same official document, we are able to state that there wojp committed to the house of correction in Portland, for larceny, from June, 1)150, to March 1851,12: from June, 1051, to March, 1852,3. At the March Term, 1852, of the Portland District Court, but one indictment, and that bv mistake, was found for larceny ; while at the March Term, If ').’ the number was seventeen. It is also interesting to note that, while at the commencement of 1851 the Mayor had thought it necessary to recommend the construction of a new alms house, to cost at least 50,000 dollars, as indispensable for the comfort and accommodation of

their numerous and increasing paupers, since the enactment of the Maine Law the general want, notwithstanding unututjj! severe winters, has been so much less than usual as to affo.' ground for expectation that the old alms-house will a(r abundant accommodation until the city shall be three or times as populous as it is. The new poor house has thereto* been abandoned. The operation of the Law has been equally successful throng out the State. In many small towns. Professor Stowe states that there is a single pauper, while in the others the gaols are empty. iri(j ' advertised to let. So marked is the improvement, that and influential men, previously engaged in the traffic now cog, sidered “infamous,” admit that they have been more thanco m , pensated for their personal loss by the rapid increase of gtneiji prosperity. The economic results have been indeed most satijfjj. tory. The Council of Portland have been enabled to invest U r «, sums in public works and in developing the industry of district.

'1 he little farming town of Fairfield, having saved 800 dol. Lans out of their poor rate of 1100 dollars, have added dollars to the public education fund, reserving the balance to provide for the enforcement of this beneficial law. So far as public documents afford reliable information—til success of the Maine Law in Maine is indisputable. The Massachusetts Law presents equally pleasing result,. Omitting for reasons already stated the city and neighbour! hood of Boston, we find the Law well enforced in Lowm. Salem, Cambridge, and other important towns of Police Report of Lowell, the Manchester of the State,, give* the the following statistics for three month*, ending re . spectively October 22nd. 1851 and 1852. During the thte, months of ‘ • license” the number of parties known to have bet® drunk, either committed or seen and assisted, amounts to is,,, during the same period of “ Law” the number has failen i 0 Warrants returned to the police court tame time, 1851, 2« ; 1(02, 153. The Lowell City Marshal remarks—- “ The amount of drunkenness for the month ending October 22, 1852, is sixty-seven per cent. less than during the tame tune last year) and the criminal business of the police court has ij. ready been reduced 38 per cent. The report of the ministry at Urge in Lowell indicates & improvement in the order, comfort, and prosperity of the co». munity since the operation of the law. and appends some iat*. resting though lengthy comment* from the City Missionaries upon its operation. Similar returns from Salem, Cambridge, Concord, and tnatj other places, give the same interesting results. From the other states in which the law is in operation have not equally authentic official information ; to far, howe, R . as general sentiment and private authority may ba accepted k evidence, the working of the system is equally favouriU everywhere. * Two great facts have been clearly elicited. First, thatnot-** withstanding alt drawbacks, the effect of the law wherere adopted, has been effectively to tuppress the tale of intoiicj, ting drinks, and as a result to diminish intemperance and & concomitant evils. ** No law.” says the address of the Mata, chusetts Convention, ‘‘can annihilate sin, but only diminish! by making it difficult and disgraceful.” Second, that the law j most popular where best enforced. In Maine anc in the towns of Massachusetts which havesej. i the benefits a* well as felt the restraint of the law, public sen:;. j nieut is almost unanimous in its favour, while from Boston. I Charlestown, and the other places where it has not been tried, | arise the only tomplaints of its stringency or severity, j The City Missionary of Roxburg, and many others, dedm i that the law has not gained favour in their neighbourhood!. . owing " wholly to the fact that it has not been executed." • • Every successful enforcement of the law has given it puW* I favour,” says the Report of the Massachusetts Convention ! This is important.

In the consideration of this principle of suppression, ere* daily as tegards its applicability in older communities, is a poet of great interest, that not only doe* the total and entire appear ts be the most satisfactory in its results, but also, when vigorous!? carried out, the most *ecure of popular support. Wmi tracing, however, the history and result of the suppress** policy throughout the United States, we must not omitu notice the increasing influence which it has obtained in othe countries.

Our own colony of New Brunswick has adopted a very stri gent enactment as far as regards wines and spirits, totally pro. hibiting their sale ; which, notwithstanding great discourags-

ment, and some demur on the part of the Government at home, received the royal sanction, and became law in that colony k June Ist, in the present year. On the 14th June also, an Act was assented to for the Units Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, entitled, •• An Acte prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors on or near the lined public works in this Province,” which, though imperfect in it form and provisions, is still stringent and summary in & powers it grants. Of the results of these two enactments we can of course knot but little as yet. It would be unreasonable perhaps to expect more favourable issue than had elsewhere been found, as w have seen, attendant on partial and incomplete legislation ct this matter. So convinced, however, ate the Indians of thedij. trict of the beneficial effect likely to ensue, that at the asses, bly of the Six Nations at Brantford a few weeks since, ths chiefs extemporised a Maine Law, themselves destroying a! liquors found upon the ground of the encampment. In many of the islands of the Pacific, aud in MadagasfcjUtis natives have found it to their interest to prohibit the h'.itTkttion and sale of strong drink—and in the republic of Liberia, i State which all must regard witji feelings of peculiar Interest, i similar policy has been adopted. But British interests are involved in this question. Then* live population of our Indian possessions offer a continual resistance to the British license system, which legalises a traffic in intoxicating drinks, in defiance of the law and religion of tb Hindoo. Petitions are continually piesented to the local Governments, in which are described with natural pathos tfcr* alarm and anxiety felt at the terrific increase of the evil oi strong drink, which invariably follows the introduction of British rule. The waves of this agitation are approaching our own shores.

It is clear that our present system of license cannot continue. It must give way to some more complete control, or, as a advocated by some, we must abandon all attempts at restriction.

The Committee of the House of Commons, on the matter of licenses, obtained by Mr W. Brown, and of which the Hon. C. P. Villiers has officiated as Chairman, has not yet published ia report, but as far as can be gathered from the proceedings of that Committee, during the progress of the evidence that inquiry has no doubt resulted in a conviction of the necessity for prompt and decisive action. In view of this state of things, an association has been organised at Manchester, already powerful in names and funds, with a view to commend to the public opinion of this country the entire and total prohibitory policy we have sketched in til foregoing pages. This association, denominated the “United Kingdom Alliance,’' has established branches ia Glasgow and Edinburgh, and other larga cities, and has issued it* address, explanatory of its objects and enforcing it* position. Before long the question of the liquor traffic will press upon the attention of the people of Great Britain. The people must decide. Something must be done and done qtflckly. It be a source of just pride for America, if ihe prove the first to have adopted the true policy. While some here will do doubt hesitate at embarking on so bold a course of legislation, there are thousands, on the other hand, who will abandon t’i abstract differences of principle in favour of the great and panmount necessity. In their view, the limb is diseased—to hesitate or fatter is death. In the face ofa monstrous evil, paralysing the industrial asi social, as well as the moral energies of the country, no delicate scruple of conscience can be suffered for a moment to set aside the popular necessity “ Salus populi supreraa lex.” S. P.