Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1853-01-20

Ser. %. hive an objection 10 this section
,l.,. n prc,cuis the States Attorney from set
tlunr with any person accused, even II the "a
cusol il willing TO pay Oh the penalties that hc
IL .h,rrod WIN having forfeited, aud all costs.
hat con,pels the case to 20 to trial and make a
l,r,re amount of costs. and perhaps in the end
The >t,,c or town loses the whole.
SEC II object to this section because b.
moro f,rce to leave the question TO the poo.
ol, IN decide and If they decide aghius, the act
=, have the law take Affect notwithstanding the
cae ofthe people. II carries the question into
,oliics and agiiaios the people through the M xt
no'nic,l contest in this State.
B,sidrs there is very good reason 20 doubt
he power of the people 10 breathe the breath of
lie mo an sct ui the legislature SO ms TO give
he oct vitality. and make It of binding force MS
law 7 he act should be perfect and oct It's life
from The legislature without pfndng on his
taking effect upon any vote Of the people his
nont has been decided against the law by the
Supreme Courts of the States of pennsyVann
and Delaware, and aorc recently by the Terrific
rial Court IN the Territory OF Minnesota, and on
this Maine Liquor Law.
Some of the friends Of this act to avoid the
constitutional objection to The destruction of "a
mans property without his consent, very grave
". They claim that It is Of no value, and there
fore is no, legally property.
a man must have great deal Of brass, who
would stand up before court or jury md nm
derake TO argue that intoxicating liquor is not
property, or thei 1t is of no value, and therefore
might be lawfully destroyed without violating
the natural and constitutional rights OF the own
er WHY, this very act recognizes it as proper
ty, having value Tor d provides for It's purchase
and suie al the EXPENSE of the town, and that the
proceeds Of the sale shall be paid into the town
TREASURY.
Some other friends Of the bill ohiec, 10 its be
ing attacked IN detail Why should II not be
discussed section by section, aud the particular
beauties of each SECTION held up TO the pnze II
the people? The frcrmcn who are called upon
to vote upon it, wish 10 understand ITS pacical
effect. and what may be done under 1t, If It
should 20 into effect.
Some either friends Of the net say vote for it.
and II It Is bad and unconstitutional IN any Of rs
provisions then the next legislature will un-
doubiedly amend IT,
But cannnt the Legislature just ns well pass a
new act. or amend the existing law, as to under
take To patch up bill winch they had mol toe
courage 10 enact, but sen, It out Ia the people e
swallow IN whole and IN part in prlucil and
detail?
Others, friends Of the bill say, what if tho
freomcu do think the net unconstitutional and
void, let the people vote for It they say, and the
courts will decide it so fit is SO.
Ttat kind ofacuon may do for those men who
end no difficulty IA trumpling upon the organic
laws Of the state and uniun To procure the pas
'oCe Of such an net but il will not do for lho-c
ireemen who ihnk their natural and constitu.
flonal rlrits are WORTH nrpspryiup and that fhr