Page:Centennial History of Oregon 1811-1912, Volume 1.djvu/322



198 s THE CENTENNIAL HISTORY OF OREGON

view of this, I think it advisable that j^ou propose an amendment to the organic law, making the clerk of the coiTnty court recorder of all land claims located within his count}', and dispense with the office of territorial recorder.

The act entitled "An act to regulate the mantifacture and sale of wine and distilled spirituous liquors, ' ' passed at the last session of the legislature, I would recommend for revision. An act to prevent the introduction, manufacture, and sale of ardent spirits in Oregon, would be far more preferable to a majoritj' of the people of this territory. In our early history ardent spirits were unknown among us ; every effort was made to keep it out of the territory, and, to a great extent, successfully, until 1846, when, owing to the defects in the law passed at the session of 1845, some persons violated the statutes, and liquor was made and sold in the territory; but it was not done openly, nor carried on to any great extent. The last legislature licensed the manufacture and sale of ardent spirits. I hope the present legislature will repeal the license law. Would it not be better to have the law opposed to ardent spirits, than to have the manu- facture and sale of it legalized by the statute ? It is argued by some persons that you have not the right to put it down, and by others, that it is interfering with the liberties of the people, and depriving them of their rights. I think you have the right to prevent its introduction; no one can dispute your right to regulate it down to the medical profession. AVith regard to taking away the liberties of the people, prohibitory laws are passed by all legislatures. I will simply give one instance. In a law of Massachusetts, passed March 23, 1833, it is declared that any person who shall, in violation of the law, sell a lottery ticket, or knowingly suffer one to be sold, in anj' building owned or rented bj' him, within the commonwealth, he shall forfeit and pay a sum not less than one hundred, nor more than two thousand dollars; and that if any person, after con- viction, shall repeat the offense, he shall be sentenced for e^-ery subsequent offence, to labor in the house of correction, or in the common jail, for a term of time not less than three months, nor more than twelve months. This was not considered by the people as taking away their liberties, though it deprives some of the liberty of ruining themselves, and others from making monej^ out of their ruin. And is not this statute founded in the true principles of legislation, not to license evil, but to defend the community from it ? Other states have passed similar laws. When a crime is committed by any person when under the influence of liquor, where does the responsibility rest? The individual, when sober, informs us he did not know what he was doing ; the seller says, I have a license to sell liquor, and sold it to him according to law. AVould it not be for the interest of the territory to take away this plea from the seller? The license system throws a bulwark around the dealer in ardent spirits, behind which he entrenches himself. Remove this bulwark, place the law against him, and public sentiment will put him down. The temperance cause is an onward one ; we hear of state after state deciding through the ballot box, that no license to sell liquor shall be gi-anted within its bounds ; and the supreme court at Wash- ington, to which several cases had been carried from the circuit courts arising from the liquor question, decided at the last term of the court that the states have a right to regulate the trade in, and the licensing of, the sale of ardent spirits.

Our organic law saj'S that the legislature shall have the power to regulate the