implement, because there is not one of them which may not, in the hands of the wicked and the vicious, be used to the injury of others.

"It is manifest that the bill was not the product of free, unshackled opinion; and this assertion needs no other proof than the declaration so often repeated by the chairman of the committee, that it was the result of a compromise, a bill of mutual concessions. We opposed the bill for this very reason. Had all the members of the committee acted solely under the influence of the doctrine involved in the quotations at the head of this article, a doctrine which pervades the whole Constitution, and is in perfect harmony with all the provisions of that instrument, what need would there have been of mutual concessions? What apology for a compromise? Concede one right to obtain possession of another? Make a compromise with usurped authority? Has not every free man, (and there ought to be no other than free men in Massachusetts,) the right to acquire, possess, and enjoy property,' without conceding any part of his right to the gratification of the caprices, the whims, the prejudices,ay, the honest prejudices,-of another? And has the Legislature the power to say, that a man shall not enjoy whatever he can purchase with a dollar, merely because he can purchase but little? Or has the Legislature any constitutional power to prescribe a minimum in respect to the sale of any article, so as to prevent the use of it by the poorest man in the state? Or can it say, that a man (rich or poor) shall not have a copper's-worth,

unless he shall purchase as much as he can get for five dollars?

"We deny-peremptorily deny the power of the Legislature to do any such thing. .... We feel the responsibility of the oath we have repeatedly taken to support the Constitution, when we say, that, as we understand it,' the Constitution confers upon the Legislature no such power."

March 25, 1839.

6

"The Fifteen-gallon Law goes into operation today. Several projects of modification have been and still are before the Legislature, but whether any of them will ever pass, is more than we would undertake to predict. We are not among the number of those who have declared that this law cannot be enforced. Such a declaration seems to indicate a distrust of the energy of the government and the integrity of the people, which we will not for a moment indulge. We do not believe that the law will be very rigidly enforced, and we are of opinion that it will be daily and openly disregarded. It is not consonant to the views and feelings of a majority of the people, or, if it be, it is not denied that a large and respectable minority are arrayed against it. It is offensively aristocratic in one of its principal features, prohibiting the sale of certain liquors, which are used by one, and that not the wealthiest class of the community, and permitting the unrestrained sale and use of certain other liquors, which are chiefly used by the richer and more extravagant. It prohibits the sale of brandy, when called by that name; but permits it, when called wine. It is a

sumptuary law, of the most odious character. If its severe enforcement should not be attempted, it may remain on the statute-book a dead letter, like the law enforcing a penalty for observing Christmas, or for a woman to be seen in the public street in a silk dress; but if its ultra friends should undertake to prosecute all violations of it, we apprehend that there will be a fearful looking for of agitation and disturbance of the elements of society, such as will not be allayed without the production of social, political and moral evils, that have had no parallel among us. We look for legal and constitutional opposition to the law, from the friends of public order and private right; and from such persons no other than legal and constitutional opposition is to be expected."

April 1, 1839.

The position thus taken in relation to the Fifteengallon Law, was not cordially approved by all the subscribers. The paper was denounced as an advocate of, or at least an apologist for, intemperance, at two or three meetings of temperance societies. Occasionally a subscriber ordered his paper to be discontinued. During the year 1839, constant and vigorous efforts were made in almost every part of the

* I am fully aware that the sentiments put forth in these extracts, and in numerous others which might be quoted from the Courier, in reference to the power of the Legislature to grant licenses, and to prohibit the free sale of spiritous liquors, will not find much favor at the present day. They were opposed as ridiculous and wicked when they were originally uttered. neither ridicule nor censure changed my opinion. The observation and experience of fourteen years have not changed it. It is not, however, the object of these extracts to frame, or introduce, an argument, but to give a specimen of the argument, as it was published.

But

commonwealth, by both the friends and opponents of the law, — the latter, to secure a majority in the next Legislature that would repeal it, the former, to secure a majority that would sustain it and even make it more effectual in checking the sale of intoxicating liquors. The Courier was open to both parties, and both parties availed themselves of the privilege that was granted. A friendly correspondence between me and the Hon. Samuel Hoar of Concord, illustrated the fact, that a controversy might be carried on without anger or vituperation, however much some might be disposed to manifest a different temper. Legislature of 1840 repealed the law.

INDEPENDENCE OF THE PRESS.

The

Nothing has ever excited my indignation more than attacks made upon the Press by writers and speakers, who wanted a subject on which to pour out the filthy dregs of ill-nature, -nothing has more quickly provoked me to the utterance of the strongest language I could command. Scribblers, whose communications have been rejected, may be expected to take their revenge in scolding, or by insulting the offending editor with anonymous letters. Some men of high standing have been known to descend from their elevated positions in the pulpit or at the bar to abuse a poor printer, who had the audacity to refuse a compliance with their wishes, and may possibly have thrown an effusion of their spleen or stupidity into the fire. I remember that, at the trial of a supposed murderer, in the state of Rhode-Island, some fifteen, or perhaps twenty, years ago, one of the most cele

brated lawyers in New-England pronounced an unmanly and undignified sentence of condemnation upon the press, accusing the newspaper printers, indiscriminately, with wilful falsehood and misrepresentation in regard to his client, and cautioning the jury against believing any thing they might see in the newspapers, for "a newspaper was the last place in which an honest man should look for truth,” — or words to that effect. On one occasion, having refused to insert a certain communication, a professedly religious editor in Boston was pleased to take up the cause of the aggrieved writer, and, after accusing me of servility and want of independence, (as if the independence of an editor consisted altogether in submission to the wishes of correspondents,) very charitably undertook to represent all those who supported the paper as reprobates and sinners, and outcasts from all moral and civil associations. While fretting under this charge of want of independence, my choler gained vent and was emitted in this wise:

or

"It is said that the Press of our country is free, nay, we boast of its freedom. Why? because any one may establish a press of his own? because printers and publishers are responsible only to the undefinable law of libel? Is it because the proprietor may use his press as his passions or his fancies invite him? Is it because he possesses the sovereign power of making it the channel of truth and virtuous communication, or the foul and pestilent sewer of falsehood and moral contamination ? Is it because he may wield it as an instrument of good or an engine of evil? Is it because its rapidly multi