tures have always acted
upon this principle, not only in regard to other trades, but also in
respect to the traffic in alcoholic drinks. As long ago as 1680, when
the public attention was first directed to the evils of intemperance, a
law was enacted _prohibiting_ the sale of a less quantity than 'a
quarter cask,' by unlicensed persons. It also _prohibited_ all sales
after nine o'clock in the evening, and sales at any time to known
drunkards. By this law landlords were obliged to suppress excessive
drinking on their premises, and not to allow persons to sit in their
bar-rooms drinking and tippling. In 1682, intemperance prevailed to such
a degree among sailors, that a law was passed forbidding the sale of
liquors to this class, except on a written permit from the master or
ship-owner. In 1698, a statute was framed prohibiting all sales to 'any
apprentice, servant or negro,' without a special order from the master.
In 1721 another law was enacted prohibiting sales _on credit_ beyond the
amount of ten shillings; and the reason assigned for it was, 'for that
many persons are so extravagant in their expenses, at taverns and other
houses of common entertainment, that it greatly hurts their families,
and makes them less able to pay and discharge their honest, just debts.'
In 1787 this rule was reenacted, and subsequently _all_ sales _on
credit_ were _prohibited_. Seven years after the adoption of the
constitution, a statute was passed limiting the sale to twenty-eight
gallons by unlicensed persons. The statute of 1818 prohibited the sale
of liquors 'to common drunkards, tipplers, and gamesters; and to persons
who so misspend, waste or lessen their estates, as to expose themselves
or their families to want, or the town to the burden of their support,
by the use of strong drink--or whose health is thus, in the opinion of
the selectmen, endangered or injured.' Here is prohibition with a
vengeance, going much beyond the provisions of the Fifteen Gallon Law,
and forbidding the sale to certain persons, and at certain times. A man
was even prohibited from asking for credit at the bar, and the landlord
could not grant it if he did, without violating a statute of the
Commonwealth. How, then, can the enemies of this measure be bare-faced
enough to assert that it is disregarding their inalienable rights? How
can they assert, with a shadow of truth on their side, that it is
introducing 'a new principle of legislation?' There is no other
p