4194                   p. S. PACIFIC  KAIL WAV  COMMISSION.
Page 397:
The statute under consideration, without reference to its provisions for the seizure and physical destruction of intoxicating liquors, by force of its prohibitions alone, sweeps them from the commerce of the State, and thus annihilates the quality of sale, which makes them valuable to the owner. This is destructive of the notion of property. I need, perhaps, take no further notice of their qualified vendibility for the Sacrament and the other special uses named in the act. These are only the occasional and incidental uses of the article. It is the general and primary use which is aimed at. It is the mass of property which is struck down; and the possible conservation of an extremely insignificant portion can not change the character of the law.
The power of disposition thus declared iuherent in property and secured by the Constitution not merely imports right of the owner to sell and dispose of it, but to sell and dispose of it at pleasure, and when aud where and how he pleases, subject only not to do so in contravention of the general laws of the land. It excludes aud is incompatible with the idea that the owner in exercising such power of disposition can in any wise be called to account therefor, or be compelled to disclose the mode and manner in which he has seen fit tp exercise this his legal and constitutional right. And it is upon this principle of the inviolability of private property and private ownership that it is not only thus secured by this provision of the Constitution, but the qwner is protected against unreasonable searches and seizure^. (Boyd v$. U. 8., 116 U. S 622, 629. 030, 631, 632, 634; Cooley on Constitutional Limitations, 376; In re Ziebold, 23 Fed. Rep., 793.)
l?ot only, therefore, is property thus secured under State and Federal Constitution, but the person of the owner is equally secured. To own or hold property without personal liberty would be but a poor boon. Hence it is that the Constitution declares that no man shall be deprived of liberty any more than property or Jife, and the liberty thus secured guaranties to the citizen full exercise of all his mental and physical faculties free from governmental interference, save and except in so far as the same may occur in the legitimate and orderly course of tho administration of the general laws of the land.
Mr. Mills, in his work on Liberty, page 24, clearly and distinctly declares the true principle underlying the legitimate province of governmental interference with the liberty of the citizen. The learned author says:
TIip only part of the conduct of any one for which be is amenable to society is that wlii'-ti I'oncern others. In the part which merely concerns himself his independence is, of 1 i      absolute.    Over hiifiself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
What kind of liberty is that which leaves the citizen liable to inquisitorial examination at the pleasure of the legislature? What kind of a constitutional guaranty is that which would thus expose him to the whims and caprices of any one department of the Government ? If in respect to matters not arising in the course of judicial proceedings he may be compelled to disclose his private affairs and pake known to the world that which lies treasured in his owu bosom, where are the vaunted guaranties of freedom? In respect to such subjects, in framing the organic law, the people have not vested the legislature, so to speak, with jurisdiction over such matters, and they are as incompetent to invade or affect the same as would be a judicial tribunal that should undertake to pass judgment in a matter entirely without its jurisdiction.
No star chamber can ever be formed under the constitution of the State of California or the United States. (First Blackstone, 231; 4th Blackstone, 266, 310, 429, 433, 437 ; 2nd Hume's Hist, of Bug., 592; 4th Hume's Hist, of Eug., 20J, 491, 495, 497, 498, 499 j 5th Hume, pages 18