large majorities; and the Legislature, chosen much with this object in view, in a summary manner gave a quietus to all the temperance expectation." The law of 1845 was repealed, throwing the State back under the old Revised Statutes.

Other States, however, held to their integrity, and more radical measures were concerted. The first legislative effort in behalf of a general prohibitory statute was made in Massachusetts in 1848. A petition with five thousand names, headed by Rev. Moses Stuart, D.D., of the Andover Theological Seminary, asked for such legislation. The committee unanimously reported on the petition, that "license laws had done, and are doing, incalculable mischief;" and said, "Public opinion, we are happy to know, is in advance of such laws, which appears from the fact that, during the past year, no licenses have been granted in thirteen out of the fourteen counties in this Commonwealth." They reported an act forbidding all sales, except for medicinal, sacramental, and artistic purposes, and providing powerful machinery for its enforcement. It made it penal to keep liquor with the intent to sell, and also to let buildings for the illegal sale. But the bill failed to become a law. It had, however, a large support.

Though Massachusetts was the first State to frame a prohibitory bill, Maine was the first to successfully enact it. In the latter State the sale of distilled spirits was prohibited by a law adopted in 1846; and, in 1848, it extended to all intoxicating liquors. The famous Maine Law, enacted three years later, was substantially the same, only it added destruction to forfeiture of liquors illegally kept for sale.

In 1847 Vermont, voting on the license question, gave 8,091 majority against it; again, in 1849, 12,679 majority against all license.

In New Hampshire many towns elected Boards of Excise who refused to grant license. In Rhode Island every town but three, for two years, voted No-License. . . . In Connecticut the Legislature gave the license

question to the people, who, in three fourths of the towns, voted NoLicense; but in 1846, they repealed the law and enacted another, countenancing and sustaining the reputable vender in his business. In New Jersey the license question was given to the people, and twenty thousand petitioners asked that all sale might be prohibited on the Sabbath. In Pennsylvania the license question was given to all who desired it, being eighteen counties, and these generally voted No-License. In Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin, the question was given to the people; and about one half the towns voted No-License. In Iowa every county but Keokuk. Ohio and Michigan made it unconstitutional ever to grant

licenses.1

Such was the progress made throughout the country between 1845 and 1851, hemming in, curtailing or prohibiting the sale of intoxicating drinks as a beverage, under heavy penalties.

In 1847 Delaware embodied the principle of prohibition in a statute, but being conditioned upon a popular vote, it was adjudged unconstitutional.

MAINE LAW.

The next step was to wholly dispense with the odious monopoly of the license system, and to forbid entirely the sale of liquors as a beverage, on the ground that it is the duty of the government to protect society against the evils of intemperance, by making the common sale of liquor (as it would arsenic, strychnine, etc.) a criminal offense, punishable as such, and liquor kept for unlawful sale liable to seizure and destruction. These were the peculiar features of what became known as the "Maine Law."

During the Washingtonian movement in Maine Hon. Neal Dow took a deep interest in the reformed and their families. He saw them made comfortable by the earnings which had before gone to the rumseller. He saw the hard struggles of the reformed men, with dram-shops on every corner alluring

1 "Temperance Recollections," by Rev. John Marsh, D.D., p. 162.

them from their steadfastness, and many of them yielding to the fatal snare.

After some partially successful local efforts he resolved to go to the Legislature, and enlist the power of the State to put a stop to "the infamous traffic," as a crime against society. A prohibitory House was elected, but the Senate was adverse. In 1846 he traveled over four thousand miles in the State, addressing the people, and secured both branches of the Legislature, before whom he appeared with the names of over forty thousand petitioners for a

prohibitory statute. The bill passed the House by a vote of 81 to 42, and the Senate by 23 to 5. But the act was an inefficient one, the penalties being mild, and striking no terror to the hearts of the liquor dealers. Desperate efforts were made for its repeal, but in vain. Intemperance, however, rolled on like a flood, for the law was void. A more efficient bill passed the Legislature in 1849, but it was vetoed by Governor Dana. In 1850 Mr. Dow went before the Legislature with what has since been known as the "Maine Law," but it was lost by a tie vote in the Senate. The following year Mr. Dow re-appeared before the Legislature with his bill perfected, and it was enacted by a vote of 86 to 40 in the House, and 18 to 10 in the Senate. It received the governor's signature on the second day of June. In the meantime, Mr. Dow had been elected Mayor of Portland.

All eyes were at once turned upon Maine, to see if she would execute her law. Will the Mayor of Portland stand firm at his post, and do his

duty, or will he shrink in fear of mobs and riots? Almost at once he issued his proclamation, declaring that he should promptly enforce the law; and giving all venders sixty days to ship their liquors to States whose governments would admit their introduction and sale. The mayors of other cities did the same; some giving a longer, some a shorter,

term.

The Mayor of Bangor resolved on a prompt execution; and, on the morning of the fourth of July, rolled out of the basement of the City Hall ten casks of liquor, seized, confiscated, and destroyed the whole. At the expiration of the term allowed the Mayor of Portland issued his search-warrant, seized two thousand dollars worth of liquor, and had it openly destroyed. No resistance was made. The people stood quietly by and witnessed the whole in respectful silence. The smaller cities and towns followed on; and throughout Maine, with some exceptions, prohibition was established. The world was taken by surprise and filled with amazement. The predictions of the opponents proved without foundation. Tippling shops and bar-rooms were every-where closed; temptations were removed; and no more drunkards were seen on the streets. Old inebriates were, of necessity, reformed, and then made comfortable. "O," said one tenant of the almshouse, as she saw the liquor poured out, "that this had been done twenty-five years ago; my husband would not have died a drunkard, and I should not have been here with my children." Pauperism and crime were reduced fifty to seventyfive per cent.; and jails and poor-houses were scarcely needed. The immense sums every-where expended before for strong drink, now expended for clothing, fuel, and bread, made hundreds of families, once subjects of charity, comfortable and happy.'

In Massachusetts petitions for a law similar to that of Maine were immediately circulated; and, on the 5th of January, 1852, a large meeting for its promotion was held in Boston, in Tremont Temple, Hon. Asahel Huntington, of Salem, presiding. A petition, bearing one hundred and twenty-six thousand names, of whom fifty thousand were legal voters, was laid upon the platform, and borne thence, with the committee, the venerable Lyman Beecher, chairman, in a large double sleigh, to the State House, under the escort of the police and a band of music. The petition was ably sustained before the

1 "Temperance Recollections," by Rev. John Marsh, D. D., pp. 246, 247.

committee of the Legislature by Revs. Edward Otheman, John Pierpont, Dr. Lyman Beecher, and Hon. Neal Dow; and in due time a bill, with the peculiar features of the Maine Law, was passed May 22, to go into operation in sixty days. "THUS THE LAW OF THE DAUGHTER BECAME THE LAW OF THE MOTHER."

In March, 1852, the Territory of Minnesota enacted the law, and it was duly ratified by the vote of the people; May 7, Rhode Island accepted it; Dec. 20, the Legislature of Vermont; a few months after, the Legislature of Michigan; June 14, 1854, Connecticut; the same year, Ohio; in 1855, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin, but twice vetoed in the latter State. In Delaware, a statute, in its general features prohibitory, but lacking some of the provisions of the Maine Law, was passed in 1855, but was replaced by the law of license in 1857. In Michigan, the law of 1853 was ratified by popular vote. This being declared an unconstitutional mode of legislation, it was re-enacted, without the clause of submission, in 1855. In Pennsylvania, in 1854, the Maine Law was lost, on its submission to the people, by a majority of three thousand votes against it, in a large poll of three hundred thousand votes.

In Albany, N. Y., an exciting scene was witnessed on the 28th of January, 1854. A large company of the friends of temperance assembled at the Delevan House, whence they moved in procession, led by the Albany Artillery Company, through the principal streets to the Capitol, where they entered, by permission, the Assembly chamber, with an immense roll of three hundred thousand petitioners for a Maine Law. They were addressed by Dr. Charles Jewett, Wm. H. Burleigh, and Rev. John Marsh, D.D.' On the 9th of March the bill passed the Senate, 21 to 11; and the House soon after, 78 to 42, seven absent; but it was vetoed by Gov. Seymour. A hot politicaltemperance campaign followed, resulting in the election of

1 "Temperance Recollections," by Rev. John Marsh, D.D., p. 256.