Eastern times. [volume] (Bath, Me.) 1846-1857, 1852-11-25
New Hampshire LIQUOR Law.

The judges of the Supreme Court have
decided that in eight several details the liquor
bill Of last June session of the Legislature Of
New Hampshire conflicts with the Constitution.
The judicial opinion now given was called for
by vote of the Senate in June last. The bill
was entitled IAN act for the suppress oftippling
shops and drinking houses A general ques-
ton was submitted to the people at the late
presidential ELECTION whether they were in favor
of law embracing the principle and provisions
in substance of the Maine Law; and that ques-
ton the people decided in the negative, by a
small majority. The opinions were given to
the Senate at Concord. on the 10th inst, and
are signed by judges Gilchrist. Woods, East
man and Bell, of the Supreme bench of that
State. They specify the following points of
unconstitutionality -. JTfE rEI
FIRST. The bill confers on justices an ex-
ten; of authority the Constitution does not
sanction, particularly in respect TO the power
1t gives them 10 pronounce u sentence OF for
fixture on liquors seized for q violation Of the
law.
Second. The bill provides for no trial by
jury, or for appeal and uial by jury before
higher court. The Constitution provides
that 10 all controversies concerning property
the parties have right TO trial by jury.
Third. The seventh section Of the act
conflicts directly with The Constitution Of the
United States. This section provides that
no action can be maintained in any court in
the State, either in whole or in part, for in
toxicaring or spurious liquors sold in any
other State or county. No law of this Suite
can deprive citizen of the United States of
the right to enforce claim of debt before the
tribunals Of this State.
Fourth. Liquors are property. The law
in recognizing them as such in the fourth
section, when in the hands of town autfori.
ties for sale and mechanics for use, cannot,
by the force Of a few phrases, make proper
ty lose its character when in other custody.
Fifth. Double or increased penalties in
cases Of conviction under appeal, because it
operates as penalty upon the party claim
ing an appeal, conflicts with his rights to an
appeal and cannot be supported by the Con-
stituti9n.
.Sirth. The bill is designed by its provis-
ions 10 demand excessive bail and render il
difficult for the accused TO procure sureties.
If it had been added that the accused should
not have the benefit of counsel to defend him,
the parallel between The present law and the
practice in England in former days would
have been complete.
Seventh. The conviction of principal
through any act of one agent is held to be
unconstitutional. The accused should be
confronted with the witnesses against him,
says the Constitution, but the liquor bill says
no and il is therefore opposed to the con-
stitutional rights of the citizen.
Eighth. The people have right to be Sc
cured against all unreasonable search Of their
dwellings, ct ceIera, and all search warrants
must be under oath, according to the Consti-
tuition. But searches and arrrests may be
made according to the bill, without warrants
on oath, and it is thus unconstitutional.