The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1852-12-29
The 20 Vermont Law

penalties, and providing for more sum
mary execution of them. The Yer
mont law is. in our judgment, less ex-
cepticnable than either of the others.
and more likely to accomplish good re-
suits. We think it should have a fair
trial, and trust that the people will so
determine, by decisive majority.
No question is now raised, by the OPP
ponents Of the new law, as to the propri-
ETY. of legislation on this subject The
objects aimed at by this law are almost
universally conceded to be good and
proper. The means by which it is pro-
posed to accomplish these objects arc
alone in controversy.
The great innovation in this case CON
sists in granting the right to search
suspected premises, and to destroy in
toxicating liquor kept for sale contrary
to law. These two principles, however,
arc embraced in other laws on our stat
ute book, and only their application to
cases of this particular kind is novel
ty If unconstitutional in this par
ticular instance, they are so in every
other. But the right of search is OK
prcssly provided for in the constitution
and the fundamental principle of our
government is. that 10 individual has a
civil right inconsistent with and hostile
to the public good. Our statutes every
where prcsuppose this Where private
property, of u really valuable character
is taken for public use, an equivalent is
rendered where that property is in its
nature injurious or dangerous to the
community. or is found under circum.
stances making it contrabdnd. it is for.
fcitcd or destroyed (thcrc are examples
of both) as a pcnalty due to the state
for violation Of its laws and its rights
aud also for the safety and protection Of
community.
As these two features Of the law arc
conceded to be just and proper BY many
of its most Jealous opponcnts-who
found their objections on minor details
we need not say more on this branch
of the subject. We believe that SC
much, at least, the great mass of the
people have, in their own minds, fully
and finally settled.
1t is not strange that there should
be difference of opinion as to many o.
the minor provisions Of this law. TIL,
details of all act Of such magnitude can
not, of course. be made acceptable tc
every body. We have no doubt that, il
this case as in others, experience vii
show the cxpediency of amendments il
some particulars; and the whole law
favorably than many of its more san
guinc admirers expect. But the qucs
ton to be practically answered on til,
second Tuesday of February is. Ought
the law, as whole, to have trial ? and
not, Is the law, in every particular, just
as we would have preferred to have it
We cannot now attempt to reply, a
length, to all the objections that hay,
been urged as to the details of the law
Mostly they are frivolous and unimpor
tant some of them are founded in ig
norance of the act itself We will refe
briefly to some of the more plausible oh
jcctions, and trust the rest to the goo,
sense of those who have carefully exam
incd the law for themselves.
1t is said that this act abridgcs tn,
right of appeal. What hind of RICH
is this , not u constitutional right, Ger
tanly besides. it is a right absolutel,
denied by law, already, in numerous il
stances. The right of appeal is a stat
ute right mercly-and it is no wron
for the Legislature to leny it entirely
in cases where Its exercise will drectl
tend to defeat the ends of justice.
We are told that this law : packs til
jury that is to sit OH cases arising III
der it. So far flom this, the law merel
conforms 10 that provision of the consi
tuition which requires that juries sha
be impartial 1t only carries out tn
principles everywhere recognized by tn
common law, that jurors shall be unJ
dSSed men,
Complaint is made because officers {
the law arc fined for refusal or neglec
on proper application, to execute i
There are similar provisions in laws tn;
have long been in force. The prlncipl
is an established one and experienC
has shown that in no case is there MOI
reluctance to act, than in such as will
rise under this law The officer wi
dislikes to take the responsibility
moreover, has now conclusive reason
: offer for promptly acting. The penali
imposed by the law for neglect shield
him in its execution, and delivers hi
} from the odium of imdiridmal respon'
bility.
Objection has been made that increa
ed powers and jurisdiction are given