proved that if there is any law on the, subject it should be stringent and. effectual. Any attempt to legalize the sale of spirituous liquors, and then regulate and control it by fines, penalties, or other punishments for a violation of the rules prescribed, only aggravates the evil which it is designed

to cure.

7. THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IN RELATION TO SEIZURES.— Any law, to be effectual, must necessarily confer upon the proper authorities the power to seize, condemn, and destroy the offending articles. It must authorize, under reasonable rules and restrictions, a search for it in stores and dwelling-houses, where there is actual or presumptive evidence to show that the law has been violated; it must authorize the use of presumptive evidence when positive proof can not be obtained, or however penal it may be in other respects, it will soon become a dead letter. The first inqury is, therefore, whether such a law is or is not unconstitutional, The clauses in the Constitution of the United States which have been urged as annulling such a law are these: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall be issued but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized;" no person "shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." These provisions have been decided to be applicable only to laws of Congress, and are of importance on this question only on account of the light which they may throw on similar provisions in the Constitution of this State.

8. THE CONSTITUTION OF CONNECTICUT IN RELATION TO SEIZURES.The provisions in the Constitution of this State are: "The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures; and no warrant shall issue to search any person or things without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation." "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have a right to be heard by himself or his counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation; he shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by due course of law." "The property of no person shall be taken for public use without just compensation therefor." These, if not all, are the strongest expressions in the Constitution. It will be seen, by a comparison of them with those taken from the Constitution of the United States, that they are more explicit. The rights of citizens are in no State more effectually guarded than in the State of Connecticut. Nothing, however, can be clearer than that by these same provisions it is assumed that some searches and seizures are lawful, and that a man may, for some causes, be deprived

of life, liberty, and property both may be done, if done by due course of law. If, therefore, the law prescribes particularly where, and how, on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, searches are to be made, and for what cause and in what manner property may be seized and the owner deprived of it, how can it be claimed that such acts are unconstitutional? But laying aside the language of the Constitution, it is a wellsettled principle of law and of common sense that every rule should be so construed as to accomplish, and not defeat, the object for which it was adopted. A different construction would be suicidal and absurd. A body politic, which should, by a constitution, restrict its own power in such a manner as to be unable to secure the happiness of its members, would commit an act of as great folly as a man who should bind his limbs in fetters so that he could not defend himself against an enemy. It can not be presumed that our ancestors left such a pernicious legacy to their posterity.

9. FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY AN ANCIENT AND CUSTOMARY PENALTY. -Forfeiture of property for criminal offenses, and even for violations of statutes, is as ancient as the common law itself. Every penalty imposed by law amounts to the same thing; for what difference can it make to a citizen whether he is confined in jail, by law, till he pays one hundred dollars, or whether a horse is taken from him, by law, worth one hundred dollars? And what difference does it make to him whether the horse is sold and the money put into the treasury, or whether it is killed? If a man, by violation of law, can forfeit his liberty, and even his life, can he not, for a similar reason, forfeit his property? Is a cask of liquor to be regarded as more sacred than liberty and life? The Legislature of this State have, time after time, provided that articles used in violation of law might be searched for, seized, and destroyed, and no suggestion was ever made that these laws were unconstitutional. The Constitution provides, indeed, that searches and seizures shall not be unreasonable. But how can an act be regarded as unreasonable which is nothing more than what is necessary to carry a law into execution? And what right has an individual to complain of an act which he himself has rendered necessary by his own suspicious and unlawful conduct?

10. "A MAN'S HOUSE IS HIS CASTLE."—It has been said by a high dignitary in a neighboring State that "a man's house is his castle;" that "it can not legally be searched, although the occupant is charged with treason or murder," and that "the only deviation" from this principle "is in cases of searches for stolen property, which are allowed upon the ground that they are designed to restore it to its lawful owners." I know of no such rule in any system of jurisprudence. It is contrary to the whole spirit of the common law. A dwelling-house is a castle to peaceable, law-abiding citizens-not a citadel for enemies of the State. Such a doctrine as that contended for would enable a man to make his house an asylum for felons, and a depôt for the tools of counterfeiters and burglars. Any malicious

villain could, by filling his place of residence in a populous city with casks apparently containing powder and barring his doors against the police, strike terror into the inhabitants, and drive them from their homes.

11. PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE.-Many persons manifest much alarm at the idea that presumptive evidence is to be held sufficient proof of a breach of the law; but this is familiar doctrine in courts of jurisprudence. Thousands have been convicted of theft merely on the evidence resulting from the possession of stolen property. The presumptive proof arising from finding articles belonging to a victim of murder, when unaccounted for, has carried many criminals to the gallows. The difficulty of proving innocence in all such cases is greater than it would be when a person is charged on presumptive evidence with selling liquors contrary to law. Such captious objections always have been made, and always can be made, to any law which is sufficiently stringent to be effectual for the prevention of crime. A resort to such grounds of opposition furnishes presumptive proof that the person who does it is opposed to the principles of the law, and does not wish it to be effectual. Sober, industrious, peaceable, patriotic citizens demand stringent laws. They have no fears of sheriffs or magistrates. Their domicils are as secure from intrusion, and their property from seizure, under a prohibitory liquor law, as under a law against swindling. Legislatures and jurists ought to regard the wishes of this class, rather than of those who never look at a law except to see how to evade it.

12. PROCESS WITHOUT NOTICE.-Much discussion has arisen on the question, whether process can constitutionally issue against property, without notice to the owner. Doubtless, when the owner can be discovered, he should be regularly served with notice; but when he intentionally conceals his ownership, the well-known maxim applies, that no man can take advantage of his own wrong. It would be strange, indeed, if the owner of a nuisance could make it perpetual by skulking, and thus avoiding legal process. 13. PUBLIC SENTIMENT.-It being then clearly within the power of the Legislature to pass such a law, the most difficult question to solve is, whether such a law ought to be made; which resolves itself into the question, whether it is demanded by the voice of the people. This is a question which you, gentlemen, are better qualified to answer than I can be, and I shall rely with confidence upon your responding fully to the will of your constituents, whether that in an immediate passage of a prohibitory law, a submission of such a law to the action of the people, or a postponement of the subject to some future occasion. If in your judgment a majority of your constituents demand such a law, I have no apprehensions regarding its suc

cess.

The signs of the times clearly indicate that public sentiment is rapidly changing in favor of it. The institutions of this State are of the most liberal character, and the people are so strongly imbued with the democratic principle of obedience to the will of the majority, that those who doubt the

justice or expediency of the law would doubtless resort only to constitutional and legal measures for its abrogation. If such a law is passed, great care should be taken to guard it in every possible way from being used as an instrument of injustice or oppression.

14. The passage of the Prohibitory Liquor Law, to take effect on the first of August following, was the response of the Legislature to this advice of the Governor, and the following statements made by Governor DUTTON, at a meeting in the Tabernacle, New York city, in December last, held in celebration of the triumph in New York State at the fall election, will show how far the expectations of the friends of prohibition were fulfilled.

TESTIMONY OF THE GOVERNOR.

15. THE BEST PROHIBITORY LAW.-As a witness to the merits and utility of a prohibitory law I am able to speak. I think it is not too much to claim for the Connecticut law that it is the best prohibitory law ever framed, because it was framed after long deliberation, and with a special regard to its being consistent with other existing laws.

16. PERIOD OF ENFORCEMENT.-The Maine Liquor Law was first enforced on the first of August, 1854, and its operation has been decidedly successful.

17. THE TRAFFIC SUSPENDED.-Not a grog-shop, so called, is to be found in the State of Connecticut since the law came into force. No matter what the local balance of interest in any town, city, or spot.in the State, the law was so framed that it should operate in all and each. I do not mean that there are not a few dark spots where, by falsehood and secrecy, evasion may be managed; but, in a word, the traffic is suspended.

Such

18. NO DRUNKARDS IN THE STREETS.-The effects are all that could be wished. I have not seen a drunkard in the streets since the 1st of August. I had not been in New York ten minutes before I saw a man drunk. is the contrast between a State with and one without a Maine Law. 19. CRIME. The statistics of crime have been materially diminished; the crimes which directly result from rum have fallen away fully half.

20. FAMILIES SUPPLIED WITH COMFORTS.-There are hundreds-I have no doubt thousands of families—who are in this inclement weather well supplied with comforts, who, but for our law, would be destitute.

21. PUBLIC PEACE AND SECURITY.-The general effect is a sober, calm, quiet air of security pervading the whole community, which is delightful to behold and enjoy.

22. DOMESTIC SECURITY.-There is one idea that a prohibitory law will invade personal and domestic security; the father of lies never invented a greater. You feel more secure when rowdyism fills the streets? Do you

suppose that under the law your firesides would not be secure, and that they could be invaded under the pretext of ascertaining if you sold liquor? No such thing.

23. OPPOSITION TO THE LAW.-The opposition predicted to the enforcement of the law is not realized; I have never known it opposed; its enemies can not get up a combination against it, because it commends itself to all men's judgments, and is better liked the longer it is known. Another reason is, the incentive to violence is taken away; riot is always preceded by Take away the rum, and you can't have the riot; and this is the great advantage of a prohibitory law.

rum.

24. DIRECT ACTION OF THE MAINE LIQUOR LAW.-Its beauty is its simplicity. When you see a nuisance you at once remove it; that is our principle; we take the "abominable thing" and put it away in some safe place. So, when we see an individual unable to take care of himself, we simply take him (no matter who he may be) and put him where he can not hurt himself or others.

25. LEGAL SUASION versus MORAL SUASION.-We have found by practice that legal suasion is better than moral suasion. The latter is quite useless, except with moral men. When men are governed merely by appetite or love of gain, moral suasion has no effect; legal suasion saves breath and labor, and accomplishes the object in the simplest manner possible.

26. THE LADIES UNANIMOUS.-The ladies are all on the side of temperance, and surely gentlemen will not be so ungallant as not to take places by the side of the ladies.

27. THE PEOPLE OF NEW ENGLAND.-The people are for temperance; five States in a row have come out square for it.

28. THE COWARDICE OF WRONG.-Let no man be deceived with the idea that blood would flow in opposition to the law. Men are cowards when in the wrong.

29. THE CONSUMMATION.-When this great cause prevails, our country will be indeed the most free, the most glorious, and the most happy on the face of the earth.

30. NO DRUNKEN BRAWLS.-In our cities and manufacturing villages, streets that were previously constantly disturbed by drunken brawls, are now as quiet as any other. The change is so palpable, that many who have been strongly opposed to such a law, have become forced to acknowledge the efficiency of this.

31. THE STATE FAIR.-At the late State Agricultural Fair it was estimated that on one day from 26 to 30,000 persons of every condition of life were assembled, and not a solitary drunkard was seen, and not the slightest disturbance was made. The effect was so manifest that the law has been regarded with more favor since than it was before.

32. PRISONS BECOMING TENANTLESS.-The statistics of our courts and