John Marsh, D.D.; "A Zoological Temperance Convention," by Professor Hitchcock, Amherst, Mass., 1849, containing an imaginary speech by an ourang-outang; Dr. Carpenter's "Prize Essay," England; Professor Youman's work on Alcohol; "The Prohibitionist," a very able paper published at Albany, W. H. Burleigh, editor. Between 1850 and 1860 a large number of sermons, essays, and addresses were published on the legal aspects of the rum question, especially in support of the Maine law.

Among the active laborers in the temperance cause, whose names have not been prominently mentioned, are the following:

T. S. Arthus, R. M. Hartley, Hon. Theodore Frelinghuysen, Rev. Daniel A. Clark, Rev. Albert Barnes, D.D., Rev. Timothy Merritt, Hon. George S. Catlin, Governor Briggs, William H. Burleigh, J. P. Coffin, Rev. J. P. Thompson, D.D., Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, Rev. Leonard Bacon, D.D., Rev. Joshua Leavitt, D.D., Professor Benjamin Silliman, Rev. Francis Wayland, D.D., Rev. Wilbur Fisk, D.D., Rev. Leonard Woods, D.D., Rev. Dr. Tyng, Rev. E. N. Kirk, D.D., Hon. S. V. S. Wilder, Anson G. Phelps, Esq., William E. Dodge, Esq., Deacon Moses Grant, the Hutchinson family, Gen. Lewis Cass, Gen. S. Houston, Rev. Eliphalet Nott, D.D. LL.D., John Collins Warren, M.D., Rev. W. Chiniqui, Rev. J. P. Cleveland, D.D., Rev. Edwin Thompson, John Tappan, Esq., Hon. Andrew T. Judson, Rev. Daniel Thurston, Rev. Edward Otheman, Hon. Mr. Barstow, Rev. T. L. Cuyler, Hon. E. D. Culver, Rev. George Peck, D.D., Rev. R. M. Hatfield, D.D., Albert Day, M.D., Rev. George Frank, Hon. William A. Buckingham, Hon. Thomas S. Williams, Chief-Justice Savage, Rev. R. S. Crampton, Rt. Rev. Alonzo Potter, D.D., David M. Reese, M.D., Mrs. L. H. Sigourney.

CHAPTER V.

TEMPERANCE LEGISLATION.

(1826-1860.)

NTIL the year 1828 the attention of the friends of temper

UNTI

ance had been chiefly directed to the discussion of the evil effects of intoxicating drinks upon society intellectually, physically, morally, socially, and in their economic aspects. About this time they began to inquire into the moral character of the traffic in alcoholic liquors. At the annual meeting of the American Temperance Society in 1829, and again in 1831, resolutions were passed condemning the traffic in ardent spirits as inconsistent with Christian and moral character, and calling upon all to abandon it. The report in 1832 was chiefly devoted to the immorality of the liquor traffic, and the subject of legislation for restraining the business was also agitated. The license-system, which had long been in existence, was found to be an obstacle to the progress of the Temperance Reformation, because it was a shield to the rumseller. A long discussion of the legal aspects of the temperance question followed, which widely and deeply occupied the public mind, and led to a revolt against the license system.

The sixth Annual Report of the American Temperance Union, in 1833, gave the following utterance:

Let all sanctioning by law of this abominable traffic be forever abandoned; and if the rising indignation of the deeply-injured and long-suffering community does not sweep it away, and men are still found base enough to continue to scatter the estates of their neighbors, to fill our almshouses with paupers, and our penitentiaries with convicts; to make wives more than widows, and children doubly orphans; to decoy our youth and sink them to a premature and ignominious grave-the people, if they choose, by the arm of legislation, can undertake the holy, righteous, and indisputable work of self-defense.

In the year 1833 Dr. Edwards issued an able document, entitled "Laws which Authorize the Traffic in Ardent Spirits as a Drink, Morally Wrong."

This view was fully sustained by the National Convention in Philadelphia in 1833, after a long and thorough discussion by gentlemen of all professions, creeds, and parties. The following year, in the Annual Report of the American Temperance Society, this subject was discussed at greater length, and the answers were given to the following inquiries which had been submitted by circulars during the year to distinguished physicians, divines, jurists, and statesmen:

1. Are the principles exhibited in these documents (previous annual report) in your view correct, and the arguments sound?

2. What would probably be the effect on the great interests of the community, should the people generally and legislators choose to have all legislation on this subject conformed to these principles ?

To these questions very able replies were received, worthy of the consideration of all investigators of this question.

For the benefit of those in our times who are not familiar with the history of this movement, we give some of the opinions expressed at this early period by eminent civilians, lawyers, and jurists, who had always lived under stringent license laws, and had studied both their legal aspects and practical workings.

TESTIMONIES AGAINST LICENSE.

Hon. George Sullivan, Attorney-General of New Hampshire, in 1833, said:

The right of any State to allow its citizens to trade in ardent spirits may well be questioned; to do this is, in my view, morally wrong. Experience has clearly proved that the necessary tendency of intemperance is to produce idleness, poverty, and crime; every member of the Legislature of a State should consider what a weight of responsibility rests upon him. . . . The man who, as a legislator, places himself on the side of intemperance, can never, as a private individual, act effectively against it. If the Legislature of a State permit by law a traffic which produces poverty with all its sufferings, which corrupts the morals and destroys the

health and lives of thousands of the community, they defeat the great and important end for which government was established.

Hon. Mark Doolittle, of Massachusetts, said:

The arguments against the license system is direct and conclusive, leaving no room for doubt. There are no abstract or unsettled principles in the case on which the mind can linger in suspense.

Hon. Joseph Henry Lumpkin, of Georgia, in 1833, said:

I entertain no doubt but that laws which authorize the traffic in ardent spirits as a drink, by licensing men to pursue it, are morally wrong.

Hon. Theodore Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, in 1833, said: Law-makers are, of all men, bound to seek the public good. But first of all shou. their legislation be pure, not only preventative of evil, but persuasive to good. No man fit to represent a free people will deny these propositions. Then what excuse can we urge for the countenance given to the use of ardent spirits on almost every statute book? On one page you will read of heavy penalties denounced against drunkenness, riots, and public disorder; and the next chapter authorizes the retail of the very poison which all admit brings on these outbreaking transgressions. Who can reconcile these glaring contradictions? It is time, every reflecting mind exclaims, to emancipate ourselves from these humiliating practices. If men will engage in this destructive traffic, if they will stoop to degrade their reason and reap the wages of iniquity, let them no longer have the law book as a pillow, nor quiet conscience with the opiate of a court license.

Hon. David Daggett, Chief-Justice of Connecticut, in 1833, said:

When public opinion shall place those who furnish the means of this destructive vice on a level with thieves and counterfeiters, then, and not till then, may we expect to see our land purged from this abomination.

Hon. John Cotton Smith, Governor of Connecticut, in 1833, said:

I am decidedly of the opinion that all laws licensing and regulating the sale of ardent spirits ought to be instantly repealed. First, because, if intended as a source of revenue, they are manifestly immoral. Secondly, if considered as sumptuary laws, which, by their operation are designed to restrain the sale and consumption of that article, they are wholly in

efficient; indeed, by legalizing, they actually increase the traffic and consumption.

The foregoing opinions have reference chiefly to the legal or constitutional aspects of the license question, declaring with great unanimity the immorality of the license system as a measure of legislation directly conflicting with just principles of jurisprudence.

We next give some opinions by eminent men in those times in regard to the practical working of the license system.

Hon. Judge Platt, of New York, in 1832, said:

The law which licenses the sale of ardent spirits is an impediment of the Temperance Reformation. Whenever public opinion and the moral sense of our community shall be so far corrected and matured as to regard them in their true light, dram-shops will be indictable at common law as public nuisances.

The Grand Jury of the City and County of New York, in 1832, said:

It is our solemn impression that the time has now arrived when our public authorities should no longer sanction the evil complained of, by granting licenses for the purpose of vending ardent spirits, thereby legalizing the traffic, at the expense of our moral, intellectual, and physical power.

Rev. Justin Edwards, D.D., in 1833, said:

Some say, "The object of licensing is not to encourage the sale and use of ardent spirit, but to restrain and prevent it." To this we answer that it does not restrain and prevent it. It has been tried for more than half a century; and its fruits have been manifest in the living wretchedness and the dying agonies of more than a million of men. Notwithstanding all such restraints and preventions the evil constantly increased, and well-nigh proved our ruin.

Hon. Gerrit Smith, of New York, in 1833, said:

What powerful persuasives to sin are the license laws! How idle to hope that men engaged in the traffic will abandon it while these laws remain unrepealed! Many will cherish a spirit of self-justification under the shield of the law; and thus the law will aid in perpetuating these evils.