Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1853-02-03

2. Judge Curtiss decision is not binding up
on the State Courts Of Rhode Island, all Of
which have sustained the liquor law of that state,
and doubtless will enforce it against the citizens
Of that state. So says the N. Y. Tribune. In
Maine, too, the Supreme Court has affirmed
the constitutonality of the liquor law.
3. The case was tried on the Constitution
and law of Rhode Island, and the decision Of the
Court has no bearing, as an authority or an opin-
ion, on the Constitution and law Of Vermont,
excep, so fat as these are identical with the Con-
stitution and law of Rhode Island
4. The leading point in Judge Curtis's de
cis.on is, that the conditions Of appeal abridge
the right Of trial by jury but it is alleged that
This objection does not erist against The Termont
iar. In Rhode Island, as we understand, no
jury trial can be had before a justice of the
peace. Yet justices have jurisdiction Of liquor
cases hence, ,c'fhom an appeal, the respondent
cannot have a jury trial in Rhode Island at all.
In New Hampshire the objection is that there
can be no trial by jury Gin the higher court
an objection not applicable, we suppose. in VII
Considering then that the conditions required
might Operate to prevent or discourage appeals,
it seems to US that the Judges objection is a
strong one. But this objection does not exist in
Vermont, for the reason that by our constitution
every body has right to trial by jury, and by our
statute Justices of the peace are clothed with
full power TO grant jury trials II is stated, how
| ,tr ., &c u 6 Do,
ple,' beftre u.s. that the liquor law does not pro-
vide for trial by jury, especially in cases aris-
ing under the 18th, 18th and 18th sections and
the writer goes so far as to say that the liquor
may be destroyed without any trial at all On
examining the 18th, 18th, 18th and 18th sections,
it strikes us that the only case in which the
liquor can be destroyed without trial is where
the owner tails 10 appear. BY Sec. ~ the own
er Is summoned 10 appear, if known; by Sec.
10 public notice is to be given If the owner.
keeper or possessor of the liquor is not known,
so that he may have notice and appear and by
section Is, the keepers are to be seized with the
| liquor and brought forthwith before Justice.
Now if an owner or keeper refuses 10 appear,
he WIVES his right voluntarily, and prerents a
trial by his own neglect. Surely the owner has
no right to complain in such a case nor can he
with any propriety say that The lac denies him
trial. He can appear, if he will; and ifhe does
appear, he can demand djwy. 1t is true the act
does not expressly provide for n trial by Jury
in these cases, nor in any other arising under
this act; but is it necessary that ii should?-
None of the statutes on crimes and punshments
provide for a trial by jury, for the reason we
suppose that trial by jury is mol statute right.
The Constitution gives the right IN all cases,
and all that remains 10 be done By statute, is to
provide the mode of selecting the jury. This is |
done by general provision, applicable to all cas-
Is in justice courts, both civil and criminal. |
lSee Compiled Statutes, chap 20, sec. so, page
235. See also chap. l0s section 3, page $50
which forblds conviction without trial by Jury,
confession Of guilt or an admission of the truth
of the charged We think this view of the
matter so clearly and ncontrovertbly correct
that we have this week excluded part of the
of "One of the People," which
we have alluded to above. In fact, sec. 10 off
The act shows beyond the shadow Of doubt that
trials by jury were contemplated by the makers
of the law, containing it does, provisions touch
ing the competency Of persons summoned to
sit on a jury. We cannot think it right then, to
permit our correspondent to urge objections
which seem to be clearly unfounded Now look
back to Judge Pitman's opinion: if there must
aud will be trial by jury in Vermont, unless
prevented by the neglect or default of the de-
fendant-does not Judge Pitman in fact sustain
the Vermont act
How far the other points in Judge Curtis's
decision apply to the Vermont act we cannot
undertake to say; since, to understand the case
correctly, 1t is necessary to compare the laws of
the two states, and TO have the decision of Judge
Curtis more clearly stated than il is in the alb
stract. One thing, however, is certain whether !
Judge Curtiss objections DO apply to the Yer
mont law, and whether they are sound objections,
can never be certainly determined until the Yer
mont law shall be put in force, and cases shalli
arise and be decided. lin the adjudication Of
cases arising under the law serious defects are
found TO exist--and we confess we fear such may
be the result,-,hen the rtmedy will have to be
applied by the legislature. II the law was now
before The legislature we should 90 for amending
1t in all the points which are likely to prove OBJ
lectionable; but as it is before the people, for
adoption or rejection as it is, we know of no
course for any man 10 take but to 90 for it, with
all its objections, if in his view the probable ben
eiits are greater than the supposed evils OF the
law--or, as we have before suggested, if he is
ready to subject himseifto the action of the law
for the sake Of the good il mey do in spite of its
alleged imperfections; and if not, he should vote
No.
The opinion of the Supreme Court of New
Hampshire, against the constitutionality of la.
uor bill presented to them has also been sent to
us. The remarks on Judge Cnrtis's decision
apply equally to this of the ~ ii. Judges, which
was substantially as follows:
l. The bill is unconstitutional because il
empowers Justices TO pronounce forfeiture ON
liquor seized for violation of the law.
,. The bill provides for no trial by Jury he.
fore higher court.
8. The bill conflicts with the constitution of
the u 5. by providing that no action can be had
for liquors sold IN any other state or country.
4. Liquors are property. The law recop-
nizes them as such when in the hands of town