Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1853-04-07
Deoisn bf> the Supreme Court in
the pf r. Q Powers.

lfals r.
We last V y sd efar'icie, announcing
the decision d Inc Supreme Court in the case
of Robinson c. Powers, of Woodstock, who had
been imprisoned for being found intoxicated
and brought before said Cou., by Hcbeas Corpus
We now give the opinion Of Chief Justice Red
field in full, and cannot forbear saying we think
1t very able, lucid and satisfactory one of the
part of the law in question, which, in our opins
ion, is one of the most practicable and lmpor-
tant sections of the law, and one which we now
hope to see promptly executed in all parts of the
State.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDGE REDFiELD.
The leading question made IN the Case Is. how
far that provision in the law, under which the
prisoner is committed, is TO be regarded as TN
constitutional. This word constitutional, as APP
piled to laws, has a very narrow range. 1t Is an
inquiry, merely, as to the conflict between any
act of the legislature, and the fundamental law
Of the state. which is supposed tie be embodied
in the express provisions Of our written state
Constitution as limited, OF enlarged, by that OF
The United States.
1t is scarcely necessary, we trust, at this late
day to say, that the judicial tribunals of The State
have no concern with the policy of Legislation,
That 10 matter, resting altogether within the
discretion of another CO ordinate branch of the
government. The judicial power cannot egti-
imatey question the policy, or refuse to sanction
the PROVISIONS OF any law, NOT Inconsistent with
the fundamental law of the State. And they
would never attempt to do this, even, except up
on obvious and satisfactory grounds.
The only ground upon which it has been
claimed that the statute in question is unconstl-
lutunaLls that it conflicts with the l0tn and II
articles Of the thll OF Rights OF our State Consti'
tuition aud with the 4th. 5lh and 9Th articles o.
the Amendments OF the United Suites Constitu
tom, embracing the same subject.
Il seems to us, that the lllh article Of ou
State Constitution, and the corresponding pro
Visions in The United States Constitution, have
no reference to the subject now before The Court
1t is IN these words: THAT the people have
right to hold themselves, their houses. paper:
and possessions. free from search, or SEIZURE, ant
therefore warrants without oath, or affirmation
FIRST made, affordlng sufficient foundation 10
them, whereby any Officer. or messenger, may
be Commanded, or qulred, to search suspected
places, or seize any person, or persons, his he
or Their property, net partlcu!ir'y described, are
contrary TO that right, aud ought not to be gran
ted" Thus seems to be directed against gener
al warrants, and general search warrants IN par
6cnar not specifically describing the person
places, "r property, to be searched, or arrested
FMS class of warrants. which in troubnlous ant
unsettled periods IN English history, were lssu
ed to very alarming extent by their Secreta
rles of State, and other magistrates perhaps. wa
prohibited, st the final settlement Ut the re- lin
upon the Prince of Q@nge, aud the Hanove
family, thu 1lf no rier; and similar pro
!: !. 4: !. !. /: +
yisI2p1il fierred to the United
81 HaJe Constitutions. |
lsN ceedng is not of tina
chafa Fever been supposed It
prnhi ale persons, or wlthou
warra where delay wou'
be b. be- first law of gov
how far this proceen