Windham County Democrat. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1836-1853, 1853-04-13
Decision on the Liquor Law.

lowing Opinion delivered in the Supreme Court OF
this State the last week at Woodstock, in case ari-
sing in that vage-The constitutionaity of the Sec
ton of the law authorizing the arrest of persons in
state of intoxcaton and disturbing the peace and re-
ourinp them TO disclose where they obtained the Ii
uuor is fully sustained, and the reasoning of the
Court we think clearly indicates the manner in which
thay are disposed to view the law generally. - Yer
mont Chronicle.
This case having been very deliberately and salts
factorily argued both for and against the discharge
prayed for, and as a speedy determination of the case
seems desirable for the prisoner, we have given the
matter our best attention which the time would allow
and the following is the opinion Of the Court, by Red
field, G.. j.
The leading question made in the is, how far
that provision in the law, under which the prisoner
is committed is TO be regarded constitutional This
word constitutional applied to the laws, has 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 to
be embodied in the express provisions of our written
State constitution, limited, enlarged, by tst Of
the United States.
1t is scarcely necessary we trust at this late day,
TO saw that the judicial tribunals of the State have
no concern with the policy of legislation. That is
matter resting altogether with the discretion Of
other coordinate branch of the government. The
judicial power cannot legitimately question the policy,
or refuse sanction the provisions OF any law, not
inconsistent with the fundamental law of the State.
And they would never attempt do this, even, except
upon obvious and satisfactory grounds.
The only ground upon which it has been claimed
that the statute in question is unconstitutional, is that
it conflicts with the 10th and 18th articles of the Bill
of Rights of our State Constitution, and with the 4h
9th and 9th articles of the Amendments of the Uni
ted States Constitution, embracing the same subject
4 tn that the lth article of State
Constitution, and the corresponding provisions 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 papers and possessions free from Search
or seizure, and therefore warrants without OATH or
affirmation first made alordng sufficient foundation
for them, whereby any officer, or messenger, may be
commanded or required, to search suspected places,
or seize any person. persons, his her their prop
erty not particularly described contrary to that
right and ought not to be granted" This seems toe
be directed against general warrants, and general
search in particular, not specifically desert
bing the PERSONS places, property, TO be searched,
or arrested This call of warrants which in troub-
lous and unsettled periods in English history were is
sued a very alarming extent, by their Secretaries
of State, and other magistrates perhaps, prohib
tied, at the final settlement of the realm upon the .
Prince of Orange, and the Hanover family think,
if not earlier and similar provisions have been trans
ferred the United States, and to most of the State
Constitutions. 1t is very obvious this proceeding is
not of that character And it has been suppos-
ed to prohibit arrests by private persons or, without
warrant, in that class of persons where delay would
be perilous-Necessy is the first law of government
well Of nature, and is not TO be abrogated by
implication.
In order to determine how far this proceeding is
in violation of the 10th article of the State Constitu
ton it will he useful f. the two ;Eo somewhat
"That in all prosecutions for criminal Offences per-
son hath right to be heard, by himself and his
sci to demand the and the nature of his
saton to be confronted with the witnesses to call
for evidence in his favor, and speedy public trial.
by an impartial jury Of the country, without the
imous consent of which jury he cannot be found gull
ty; nor he be compelled to give evidence against
himself; any person be justly deprived of
his liberty, except by the laws OF the land, and the
judgment of his peers"
1t is obvious to remark, upon the slightest view of
this article, that if the prosecution under consdera-
ton is of the character indicated in this article the
proceedings cannot be maintained. The proceedings
indicated in the 22d section of the statute under con-
sideration possesses almost of the requisites in
dcated in the 10th article of our Constitution But
think the proceedings under this statute not TO
be regarded altogether prosecution for criminal
o1ence-perhaps not to any extent. The prosecution
referred to in this article in the Constitution is obv
ousy the final trial, before the traverse jury in open
court, and would to have reference altogether to
those Courts whose proceedings are according TO the
course of the common law, and especially to Offences
properly speaking-"C Criminal Offences" in the
words Of the article; such made punishable by
Imprisonment, other personal disability, or
at all events by fine. And it is questionable, think,
whether this article intended to have refer
to that class of minor offences, which from time
immemorial, both in this country and in England, |
have been made punishable by single magistrates,
without any of the appliances, apparatus, which
seem TO be indicated in. this article But however
that may be it to that the proceeding indi-
Gated in the statute under consideration is not even
of those minor offences punishable by fine only
The proceeding against the relator was in the first
instance of a criminal nature, and to some extent in
its inception against him, inasmuch it deprived him
Of his liberty, until he became sober, and that induced
to require notice to the States Attorney. Beyond
that, it does not to be proceeding against him
but sort of court of inquiry against unknown
but suspected person, guilty of another offence a.
gainst this same statute, in furnishing the cause of
this persons first offence After the man becomes
sober, the statute does not propose to subject him to
any restraint by way of punishment for any offence
but only to secure his testimony against other persons
suspected of some violation of the law and Of aiding
in his first guilt.
The inquiry then arises whether these provisions
of the law, in the mode they proposed to he ac-
comPlislIed, against any fundamental law of the
State, or the United States,
The whole matter is very considerably affected in
our view, if we settle in our minds that the legisla-
tba ;,,Jo bo,uc