Grand River times. [volume] (Grand Haven, Mich.) 1851-18??, 1853-02-16
THE GRAND RIVER TIMES.
GRAND HAVEN, MICHIGAN,
WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEB. 16, 1853.

WEDNEoDAi EN ENlNU, rID. 10, 1000
rW- The fate of tho liquor law in Rhode Is
land, New Hampshire and Minnesota, seems to
have produced the impression with many of our
citizens, that law restraining the traffic in spr-
ituous liquors will be sustained when carried to
the higher courts Those who entertain this
idea have not considered the grounds on which
the law in these several instances has been de-
clared unconstitutional In Minnesota the law
had been submitted to the people. The courts
in that Territory hold, that the Legislative pow
er being vested by the Organic Act in the legis-
lative assembly and Governor, they had no au-
thority to delegate it to any body or persons
not even to the people of the Territory. The
judges of the N. Fl. superior court held the law
of that State to be at variance with the State
constitution in several particulars. Among these
were the following; that it made no provisions
for trial by jury, or appeal and trial by jury in
higher court; that it imposed double or increased
penalties in case of conviction on appeal; that
it was designed by its provisions to demand ex-
cessive bail, and that searches and arrests might
be made under it without warrants under oath.
These, and all the other alleged grounds of un-
constitutionality, go only to the details of the
law. The same may be said with regard to the
late decision on the Rhode Island law In no
instance has the right of the State legislature
to restrain,or even prohibit, the manufacture and
sale of intoxicating drinks been denied None
of the principles of the so called Maine Law,
nor none of the provisions really necessary to
carry that law into effect, have yet been success
fully assailed on the ground of unconsttution-
alty. On the other hand, the right of the State
to regulate or prohibit the traffic in spirituous
liquors, has been most distinctly affirmed in the
Supreme Court of the United States, and the
ground on which that right was recognized, was
such as would sustain q law authorizing the
destruction of the liquor as provided for in the
Maine Law. Laws involving the same principle
are not uncommon. The laws of the u. s. ali-
thorize the destruction of all liquors found in
the Indian country that are not used as supplies
for the army. The statutes of Michigan, like
the statues of most other States, provide for
the search after, and the destruction Of gaming
apparatus, obscene books, lottery tickets, coun-
terfet money, and the tools and utensils for
making counterfeit money. Nusances may be
abated. The liberty of the person, and the use
Of property, may be restricted if deemed neces-
sary to prevent the spread of contagion. The
constitutionality of these laws are never ques-
toned. The same or similar ones have been
enforced in all States. The police power is
acknowledged to be exclusively in the State,
and it may adopt such measures as it may deem
expedient to preserve the morals of the people,
and prevent the spread of vice, disease, pauper-
ism and crime. This doctrine has been overruled
in none of the decisions to which we have re-
ferred. These have merely asserted and upheld
certain broad constitutional rights, the violation
of which in the enactment Of laws on any other
subject, would have been equally fatal to any
efforts made for their enforcement. The friends
of the liquor law have perhaps been over zeal
Gus in some instances, and consequently framed
their laws with too little regard to the rights of
the accused. But if it be true that in these Ca
ses the constitutional privileges of the citizen
have been invaded, it is equally true that all
that is aimed at in the Maine Law may be car
ried into effect without the occurrence of any
such wrong. We have on our statute books
provisions authorizing the search for and des-
truction of certain kinds Of property. We
have a law prescribing the way in which appeals
may be taken. The manner of choosing jurors
and their qualifications are all laid down. The
laws of evidence are well defined We can see
no good reason for prescribing departure from
the ordinary course of judicial procedure when
enactng law for the suppression of tipping
houses. The decisions in Rhode Island and
New Hampshire show that this mode of legis-
lation is not always safe, besides, if adopted
generally it would serve to cucumber our stat
ute books and render our laws complicated and
confused.
We are not fully appraised of the details of
the bill which has been before our legislature.
1t is however very similar to the law in Maine.
At our latest advices it had passed the House
by heavy majority. 1t has doubtless also
passed the Senate. 1t contains provision sub
hitting it to the people at a special election to
be held on the first day of July next If ma