Newspaper Page Text
TIIr WASHINGTONIAN.
AUGUSTA. FEBRUARY 22m1, 1845.
EDITORIAL CO.MMITTE£.
Rev. W. T. Brantcy, | Dr. D. Hook,
“ W. J. Hard, James Harper, Esq.
“ C. S. Deo, IA. W. Noel, Esq.
imT'ijii 1 r ■ ■ - ' a
tSO~ To DiiT.tfit Su««cm»ras.-*-Post Masters arc uu.
thorized by law to remit money to the publisher* of
■ewspepcr* and periodical*, in payment of suhscrip.
tions. Subscribers to the U'mtUnftoniaa can therefore
pay for their papers without subjecting themselves or
the publisher to the expense of postage, by handing the
■mount to the Post Master, with a request to remit it.
Notices of l’apcrg.
The Christian Index. —This paper is
the property of the Georgia Baptist Con
vention. Rev. Joseph S. Baker is its Ed
itor. It is published at Penfield, Greene !
county, Ga. Although this is an old j
friend, yet its youth is so completely re
netved, that it seems to us like a new
publication. Its columns are always fill
ed with interesting original, and well sc
lectcd matter. It is ably conducted, and
its editor is well sustained by efficient
correspondents. Wo are glad to learn
that the star of its prosperity is in the as
cendant—may it stay there a thousand
years.
Hartford Columbian. —This is the ti
tie of a family newspaper published in
Hartford, Connecticut. It is a respecta
ble Northern affair. It will not take in
this latitude, however; for although it
professes to be “ Independent of Party or
Sect,” it is as warmly addicted to the
anti-slavery party ns it can be. We
comply with the request, “ please notice,”
which by the way was “ unconstitution
ally’ made; but wo cannot recommend
it to the South.
Dahlonega Watchman. —A new paper
—neatly printed—and well edited, by M.
H. Guthright, Esq. Its politics are dem
ocratic. We commend it to all—to
democrats especially.
Han. D. Webster on the I.icenso I.aw of j
Massachusetts.
This distinguished personage has de
livered an argument before the Supreme
Court of the United States against the
Law of Massachusetts, which regulates
the sale of liquors. In the commence
ment of his address, the intent of the law
was commended. The enuso of Tem
perance was nlso highly lauded; he
terms it “ A NOBLE AND A HOLY
CAUSE!!!” We make no comments
upon the introduction—wc will not ven
ture a remark upon the harmony that
should exist between profession and prac
tice—we pass to the argument, which
was, that Massachusetts had acted uncon
stitutionally. It was made out thus:
Congress allows the importation of li
quors for the sake of the duties. Now if
these liquors be not drunk the importa
tion will cease, and with it the duty,
which the revenue requires. Massachu
setts, by her present law interferes with
congress by diminishing consumption—
thus indirectly warring against the re
sources of the national prosperity. But
such collision is unconstitutional—there
foro the law is unconstitutional. This is
about the marrow of the learned gentle
man’s argument. It is ingenious. It
might have been extended. The uncon
stitutionality of Temperance Societies
may have been shown—the unconstitu
tionally of individual abstinence—nny,
more, by going to the ultimatum, drinking
liquor is quite a patriotic, and a constitu
tional practice ; and the greatest drink
ers are patriots of the largest calibre.
We hare been grieved at the informa
tion we have recived from time to time,
about the habits of some of our distin
tinguished men. We have been sorry to
learn that the most gigantic intellect has
been brutalized by intoxication. Our
sorrow has been increased by our reflec
tions upon the matter. But it seems we
were shallow thinkers. There may be
glory in intoxication—it aids Congress in
carrying out its designs. May there not
be some qxcuse for the rowdyism of the
rowdies in Congress. Should not our leg
islators be patterns of patriotism in all
things 1
The Declaration.
Our friend, E. C. Delavan, has obtain
ed the signatures of six Presidents of the
United States, to a declaration made from
“observation, and experience, as well
as from medical testimony,” that the
drinking of ardent spirits is not only
needless but hurtful, and that all citizens
of the United States, and especially the
young men, would promote not only their
personal welfare, but that of their
COUNTRY and the world, by abandon
ing their use. This we give as an offset
to Mr. Webster’s argument. The Pres
idents are
JAMES MADISON.
ANDREW JACKSON,
J. QUINCY ADAMS,
JOHN TYLER,
JAS. K. POLK.
Mr. Wtbsiei’s Speech.
We have concluded to give the entire i
remarks of Mr. Webster on the license
law of .Massachusetts. Our readers will
‘ now be able to judge of its merits. We
; think they will agree with us in the opin
ion that we have expressed—viz. that it
is very ingeniouis—but not so very solid.
“Sileul Influence.'’
We do not believe in the permanent
results of noisy excitement. When the
depths of the heart are stirred up, there
is no vehement nnd loud demonstration
to make it appear. Deeply affected na
ture makes a quiet exhibition of its emo
tions. We believe all this, and there
fore disapprove all “ thundering and
lightning” efforts on any subject, as gen
erally impracticable. “ A calm always
succeeds ,a storm.” Mind unnaturally
stimulated becomes depressed, and its
healthy action is for a season impaired.
Excitants are good in their places; but
men cannot subsist on stimuli. We
think the tone of the public mind has
suffered so much from over-action in
temperance matters, that it now rejects
every thing that is proffered it.
Physicians sometimes leave nature to
recover its energies. This treatment is
often successful. It has been thought
proper by the “ powers tliai that ex .
ccllent physician, our estimable president
at their head, to pursue this method with
the good temperance folks of our city,
and to try their appetites by occasional
addresses. It seems that every proffer of
tho kind has been rejected thus far—
temperance is deemed a good thing—but
long talks or short addresses on the subject
are very nauseous—very. The “silent
influence” is now tho reliance of the
staunch friends of tho cause. Wo nave
no objection to trusting to any extent the
power of tho temperance cause—we be
iieve the theory and results will carry
conviction to every thinking mind. But
let us not get too silent. While wc
would not be Shakers, we ought not to be
Quakers.
We had almost forgotten to say, that
the most effectual part of the silent plan
is, to take the Washingtonian and sus
tain it.
Gloomy I’rospect.
The grand moral lesson of Washing
ton’s life is never more to be rehearsed to
the people of Augusta ! The memora
ble day of our Independence will no
more he observed by them! Our glorious
forefathers will never more be publicly
honored ! No more shall the immortal
declaration bo read to our great assem
blies ! No more, shall our orators dwell
upon the principles of our government—
upon the blessings of popular liberty—
upon our privileges and responsibilities.
Hereafter, wo will have no 4th of Julj
—Freedom will have no Sabbath—The
Churches are closed against such cele
brations !!!
If the same measure be adopted else
where, the people will forget the revolu
tion—will forget that they have a com
mon ancestry—will forget the ties
which should bind the Union. Let the
plan be general, and in a quarter of a
century there will be no Union. We
suppose that any appeal would be useless.
Some decisions of some folks are as frre
versibie as were the doings of obstinate
Medes and Persians. We wonder if any
of the heroes of ’76 have any descend
ants, who are concerned in this sapient
measure ? But we are done. We will
place a stopper upon the vial of our in
dignation.
For the Washingtonian.
" *
Temptation.
Temptation is one of the most effectu
al methods, which the Prince ofDarkness
employs to misguide and mislead man
kind. Our blessed Lord well remember
ed to whom he was giving that beautiful
prayer, when he said, “ Lead us not into
Temptation, but deliver us from Evil.”
: Yea ! his own precious experience told
him how much we would have need of
that prayer. When Satan dared to
tempt one whom he knew to be his Lord
and Master, how much less a work is it
to him when he comes to try those who
! by nature are weak and vascillating?—
How many of us who had been used in
our earlier years to repeat this prayer
daily, have grown up to forget it, and es
pecially when about to be led into tempt
ation ? Oh ! then pause and think, those
of you who are too often tempted to taste
of the spurkliag glass, of that sentence,
j “Lend us not into temptation but deliver
lus from evil.” Beware those of you who
j are never in the habit even of tasting.
| Our heavenly Father in his abounding
I love to us, allows us to be tried, and we
know not our strength. Behold that
wonderful instance of the trial by tempt- j
ation of Job, a faithful servant of the
Lord’s. Drink not then of that cup
whose contents are bright and sparkling,
for in them can be clearly discovered
three fatal words, Temptation, Intemper
ance, —Destruction. E.
From the Boston Daily Advertiser.
Mr. Webster on the License Question.
Washington, Jan. 31, 1845.
The room of the Supreme Court of
the United States was crowded to-day to
hear the argument of Daniel Webster on
the License Law of Massachusetts. It
presented quite an array of beauty and
intellect, compared with the usual audi
tory thero assembled. He occupied
about two hours. He commenced by
saying, that the general intent of these |
laws is good, but there are those who be-1
lieve, and I am one of them, that if in-1
temperance is to he put down, it must be !
by more powerful means than the law in I
•y,ration. il Itxusi tie try Uic uatJ ul’ r«,„t- |
al, religious and persuasive means rather j
than by coercion. The cause of Tern-1
perance cannot be too much applauded.
It is a noble and a holy cause. But there
are States which have not disturbed their
License Laws, where temperance has j
made much more progress than where
penal laws have been enacted.
If wo look abroad, where has the tem
perance reform been most successful ?
Look to Ireland ! Did Father Mathew
go forth, clothed with coercive powers,
from British statutes, and depending on
license laws? No. He appealed to the
consciences, the understandings, the mor
ality, the religion of the people; and
where has this reformation been more
successful, where has it struck deeper
than in Ireland | It is this course, and
this only, that can abate the evils of in
temperance. Religion and morals, the
pulpit, the lecture room, the press, the
example of good men, well directed pub
lic opinion—these are the means which
must work out this good and extermi
nate this evil.
My learned friend (Mr. Huntington of
Salem) has referred to statistics; I shall
also refer to statistics. By the law of
Massachusetts, it has been left optional
with the counties to grant licences or to
withhold them. In the counties that
have adhered to the old plan, there has
been less intemperance than in those that
adopted more coercive measures.
Congress permits the importation of
liquors ; it may encourage or discourage
such importations. Massachusetts has
never asked Congress to prohibit the im
portation of spirits into the ports of the
United States. That would have been
the proper plan of proceeding; but she
did not ask for any such sumptuary laws.
Massachusetts, also, with all her law-s,
tolerates the manufacture of spirits; she
does not even discourage the manufac
tures by taxation on distilleries.
The decision of this case in favor of
the plaintiff in error would not be de
rogatory to the character of Massachu
setts, as my learned friend hinted at. I al
ways dislike to hear these allusions to the
destruction of the character of States, if
this, that, or the other measure cannot he
carried. This power to regulate com
merce is clearly,a prerogative of Congress;
and it is not derogatory to a State to sub
mit to the control of Congress. Massa
chusetts may sometimes have felt agriev
ed at some decisions of this Court; but
on the whole she has no cause to corn
plain. She must forget her character
and history before she complains of the
National powers in regulating these af
fairs. If is the beneficent course of Con
gress that ha 3 accelerated her in her on
ward wuy. Other States have been con
trolled by (he exercise of this power,
and she has felt the benefits. The ruling
in the Steamboat Monopoly case of New
York is one of them. She might better
effect some objects, had she retained the
power to control commerce; but she
yielded to Congress. It would be unjust
and ungenerous to take back part of that
which she yielded for the common good.
Mr. Webster then went into a history
of the laws of Massachusetts on this
question, pointing out the requirements of
; the acts of 1786, 1835, ’37, ’3B, and ’4O.
I The act of 1835, sections 3d and 17th,
; provides that licenses may be granted on
| certain conditions. A dispute arose j
j about thetneaning of the Statute, wheth
i cty it was merely optional. The act of!
1837 was passed to settle this dispute, i
the second section providing that the I
County Commissioners were empowered
not compelled to grant licenses. The !
law of 1838 made it illegal to sell less
than 15 gallons. This amounted to a ’
prohibition, and in 1840 it was repealed, j
leaving the law as it was by the Statute
of 1837—forbidding the letail of spirits
in less than 28 gallons, without license at j
the option of the County Commissioners, j
The law against which we contend is
intended for prohibition, for the aboli
tion of sales. It is intended and effects
the abolition of consumption in the!
State. It has been distinctly admitted j
by my learned friend that it is the policy
of Massachusetts to abolish the con-!
sumption. The Supreme Court of' Mas- !
sachusetts sees nothing in the law but a !
regulation—her representative here ;
boasts that it is intended for prohibition, !
which is not regulation.
The question then is, are State laws, \
intended to contravene a law of Con- i
gress, constitutional? By the laws of
Congress spirits may be imported in casks
of less than 15 gallons and wine in bot
tles of less than a quart, and the laws of
Massachusetts say that her citizens shall
not soli wine or spirits in less quantities
that 28 gallons.
The case of Brown against Maryland
is not so strong as this. That was in
tended for taxation, not prohibition.—
The laws complained of seek no reve
nue which was the object of the law in
the other case. In Brown’s case sale
was only embarrassed; here it is prohib
ited. Non-consumption is the object of
this law. The Court in Brown’s case
that there is no difference be
tween the power to aOmti and prohibit.
If none he sold, none can be imported.
The learned Chief Justice of Massa
chusetts says that the plaintiff is not an
importer. This docs not appear. For
all that is on the record, Samuel Thur
low is an importer. If this was intended
to be proved, it should have been stated
in the indictment, “not being an impor
ter.” Yet the indictment is not a
bad one. The laws make no distinc
tion between persons whether importers
or retailers; yet the laws of Congress
say that spirits may be imported in casks
of less quantity than can be sold by re
tailers. This is making a distinction be
tween persons which the law does not
recognize.
This distinction is valuable in Brown’s
case, because the laws of Maryland were
confined to importers, and because it was
a tax case. It has not touched the pow
er of Congress nor the mode in which
that power shall be exercised.
The counsel admits a distinction made
between importers and retailers. It is
even said that this law may be good in
part and bad in part; that it may be val
id in its application to some persons and
void in its application to others. If so,
there must be some legal distinction.—
This act makes no distinction. No law
of Congress makes any distinction.— ;
Both importer and retailer are private
citizens engaged in commerce on their
own account.
A word about the phraseology of the
Constitution, (Article 1, Section 8.) —
“Among the States” Congress shall .
have power “ to regulate commerce with
foreign nations and among the several
States and with the Indian tribes.”—
Among the States does not mean among
the sovereignties of the States, but among
the people of the States. “ Several j
States” here means all the States. I
would no.t dwell on this exposition of
words, but would recommend it to some
writer on verbal criticism.
In looking back, one now thinks it
strange that New York should have in
sisted in making her lakes and rivers and
harbours a mare clausum toother States.
Yet it had the sanction of such men as
Spencer. The Chief Justice in his de
cision on this case, cut the smallest pat
tern possible for the work he had to do.
He might have given the principle a
wider application.
But the doctrine of State laws inter
fering with commerce among the citizens
cannot be maintained. If a patentee
sells his patent-right to a citizen ofa-State
in which patent-right are not looked on
favorably, can the State interfere with
i this transaction and say that the patent
right shall not be valid ?
I The power to license is clearly in the
State, but where State laws conflict with
the laws of Congress, the State law must
i yield. If it impedes a United States law,
then it must give way. (in support of
j this he quoted authority in point.)
Whatever State law impedes a law of
j Congress is unconstitutional. What
ever tends to defeat the substantial pur
pose of a law impedes that law.
The law of Congress authorizes impor
tations for the sake of consumption.—
The purpose of Congress is to legalize
consumption. It gets duties on con
j sumption. 'I he learned counsel admits
j and proclaims that the State laws is in
tended to prohibit—to abolish consump
tion.
But what is this “ police power” of
which we hear so much? It is not de
fined in the Constitution. But this case
} is not a law of police, but a law of Com
merce. A city can make police laws,
but cannot make laws for the regulation
of commerce. By laws of Congress
spirits can be imported, or in other words
purchased, in casks of 15 gallons or 10
gallons; but by the law’s of Massachu.
setts it cannot be sold in less quantities
than 29 gallons, except by the option of
County Commissioners. If to sell or buy
in less than 28 gallons is retail, then
Congress imports in retail.
But I choose to take hold of this pro
position by somewhat a stronger hand.
Let the distinction between wholesale
and retail run where it may, a State can
not control the quantity. What is the
value of wholesale if retail trade is cut
off? Export trade is like a river, con
veying from springs and rivulets, and
flowing out to the wide ocean. Import
trade is like irrigration—let out by rills
from a large fountain ; and this large
fountain must be controlled by one pow
er, the national power. I do not denv
that laws for health, <kc. may he enacted
by States; but laws cannot be passed to
prohibit or abolish what Congress has
passed laws to regulate. If retail is stop
ped, wholesale must stop also. If con
sumption is stopped, so must imports be
stopped.
What would be the effect of this mea
sure if applied to other cases? Suppose
that Spirits cost one dollar a gallon.—
The law of Massachusetts then is that
you shall not purchase less than 28 dol
lars worth. Now suppose this rule
applied to other articles of commerce,
Broadcloth for instance. The State of
New York wishes to encourage her sa
line manufactures, and, on her Canals,
give preference to her own Salt, over for
eign Salt. But could she pass a law
that you should not buy a less quantity
than 28 dollars’s worth ? Suppose that
the same rule now applied to other bever
ages, Tea, Coffee, Spices or Tobacco, anil
what would he the consequence?
It is high time, your Honors, that these
questions were settled, and the law es
tablished. What are we coming to?—
Suppose some of the Northern States
should take into consideration to pass a
law prohibiting the sale ofthe productions
of Southern States, Sugar for instance,
except in such quantities as to amount to
a total prohibition. The authority of
Congress over Spirits, Tea, Sugar, &c.
is the same. Or on the contrary, sup
pose some ofthe Southern States should
pass laws intended to have a similar ef
fect on the manufactures of the North,
imported into Southern States! These
things are not so remote as to pass with
out notice, for threats of this kind have
already been held out from high places.
Would such a state of things be desirable?
I trust therefore that this question will bo
settled in such away as to sustain the
National authority over these cases ; and
show to the several States, that their in
terest and dignity are best consulted by
a ready acquiescence with the laws of
Congress.
The present law of Massachusetts ap
pears to be milder than the 15 gallon law
of 1840; but there we have it openly
avowed by the counsel of the Common
wealth that its object is the same.
The several States should submit
promptlyio all the laws of Congress. It
is derogatory to any State to hold up her
own laws in opposition to those of Con
gress. Even when the injury is done,
as some States have supposed to be the
case by the operation of Tariff’ Laws, the
States should submit with alacrity to
these regulations. It is by such com
promises that we maintain our nationali
ty- They are a surrender of State privi
leges, given in exchange for benefits ac
cruing from our Federal compact.
My learned friend has acknowledged,
what he could not deny, that this State
law is intended for prohibition. Con
gress has regulated this matter so as to
derive a revenue from the consumption,
which the State has passed a law to
abolish. I have shown that when a State
law conflicts with, or impedes a law of
Congress, the State must yield. As
therefore it is acknowledged that ths
present law is intended to conflict with