Some Peculiar Laws. That the most serious of crimes were so severely punished we cannot wonder. These were troublous times. The colonists were in constant dread of the surrounding Indians,and internal peace and order must be had at any price. But that the Code should punish acts not mala in se and in our day not even mala proliibita as severely as it did, is remarkable. Shuffle-board was interdicted because, says the preamble to the act, it caused much dis order in the taverns, " whereby much precious time is spent unfruitfully, and must waste of wyne and beare occasioned." The law favored matrimony by forbidding young unmarried men to keep house for themselves without the consent of the town, under a penalty of twenty shillings per week. This I imagine was salutary in effect. "No person, householder, or other shall spend his time idlely or unprofitably, under paine of such punishment, as the courte shall think meete to inflict, and for this end, it is ordered, that the constable of every place shall use speciall care and dilligence, to take knowledge of offenders in this kinde; es pecially, of common coasters, unprofitable fowlers, and tobacko takers etc." This law appears a wise provision in a day when the idle man was a burden to the progressive colonists. So also lying was severely pun ished by fine, whipping and by confinement in the stocks. No one was allowed to smoke until he was twenty-one years of age, and no one over this age unless he had accus tomed himself to the use of tobacco. How ever, a physician's certificate, or an order of court, removed all disabilities in this connec tion. No one at all was permitted to smoke in the streets, highways or barnyards under penalty of a heavy fine.
577
These are the most peculiar instances of legislation in the Code. It will be seen that in almost every instance the law is vague and indefinite and thus impossible of exact con struction. The early settlers in America were men of very narrow views, and no better illustration of this can be found than in their bearing on matters of religion. With the exception of the Rhode Island colonists, they were extreme bigots. No one was right but they. It is hence but natural that their views on this subject should be reflected in their actions on others. While it is true that the exigencies of the time demanded strenu ous legislation, yet when a colony goes to the length of prohibiting that which every man has a perfect right to do, it has overstepped the bounds of legislation and has gone to the realm of tyranny and oppression. We must not suppose that these laws became very popular. This is conclusively shown by the frontispiece of the little volume under con sideration. It is entitled "The Constable seizing a tobacco taker." A constable is represented in the act of arresting a tobacco chewer. As he seizes the delinquent he ex claims, " Chaw tobacco will you? ", but re ceives this reply mixed with a shower of tobacco juice : " Say nothing, you shall have some of the tea." The wife and children of the constable are on the scene. " Mam, dad has catcht a man chawing tobacco," says a child, to which the mother answers, " My child, he will have his deserts." Suffice it to say that such laws may be supposed to exist in the infancy of civil government, when the State, being but recently born, is strug gling for existence, and when the .growth must not be impeded by internal disorder and dissension.
