The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1853-02-26
Chief Justice Hayner ON the " Maine Liquor
LaN.O

There being doubts in the minds of Legisla-
tors in regard to the constitutionality of this
law, the Council some days since, passed res
olution calling upon Judge Hayner for his opin-
ion upon the same. 1t will be found below
We mention in another place that the Council
has passed the bill. Previous to its passage, il
was amended, we believe, in every particular
indicated as being unconstitutional by the
Judge. Other amendments were also made
which leaves it vastly different from the law
attempted to BIC enacted last year. 1t still
however, retains its prohbitory feature.
The numerous petitions which have come in
from all parts Of the Territory, calling for the
enactment Of this measure, would seem to indi.
cate that nothing short of fair trial (Which
the petitioners say has never yet been had,) Of
aprohbitory law will settle the question among
the people. 1t is hoped that if anything of the
kind is finally passed, twill be put upon firm
constitutional basis and not remain subject to be
overturned by the first Court which may sit in
judgment upon its merits. But to the opinion
AT CHAMBERS, ST.. Paul.
18th February, 1858.
TO the Honorable the Legislative Council OF
the Territory Of Minnesota:
l am apprised by your Secretary that Res
olution was adopted by your Honorable Body,
the 10th instant, q copy whereof accompanying
a copy of Bill "For the restriction of the sale
Of intoxicating liquors within the Territory OF
Minnesota" was enclosed to me by him, rcqui.
ring my opinion on the constitutionalty of such
a law if passed.
81, Az II Cvx
utes of the Territory, find that you have the
full right and authority to call upon me for
such opinion. [I. S., s Is, p. 3S.1
Whatever may be my private views of the
propriety Or improperly of such legal re-
quirement, ] shall not claim an exemption from
the duty imposed upon me by the Resolution.
Knowing, as do, that your labors are draw
ing to a close, from the limitations prescribed
by law, as to the time you are authorized to
continue your sessions, | am warned thereby
that whatever communications have to make
must be FASTENED with all convenient speed.
Agreeable to your request, | will state that I
have examined the Bill referred to, to the ex-
tent that time and opportunity have permitted
since the same has come to hand, and perceive
the Bill has been drawn with a view to avoid
the constitutional objections that have hereto
fore been deemed to he valid in respect to en-
actmcnts in some of the States, having the
same end in view.
The limited time afforded me for the consd-
GRAFTON of the various cases that NAV be fairly
supposed will arise under such law. and the
manifest design of those who drew the Bill to
have all its provisions in the full stringency of
other and similar enactments, avoiding those
provisions heretofore held unconstitutional.
and no others; intending to travel as closely
as possible to the utmost constitutional limits.
in the framing of the Bill. will prevent me from
traversng the boundary between what NAV or
may not be constitutional, so thoroughly as to
ascertain whenever it is approached by the Bill.
whether 1t trenches upon it or not, even salts
factory to myself; and must premise that in
any suggestion or intimation / NAV make TO
your Honorable Body, shall hold myself free
of any blame, provided the Bill becomes law.
and the same or like questions are raised before
me judicially, if after argument by counsel and
more mature deliberation, shall arrive at diff.
tercnt conclusions from what shall express in
this communication. With these qualifications
make the following suggestions as probably
correct:
First. The 9th section violates the United
States constitutional provision. that a man
shall not be compelled, in criminal case, to
be witness against himself
Second. The 18th section violates the nro-
visions of the Constitution of the United
States in these respects, viz: ''
lst: That man shall not be deprived of
his liberty Or property. without due process of
law.
I'd. That the people have the right to be Sc
cure In their persons. houses and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
III. That no warrants shall issue but upon
probable cause, &c.
4th. That the defendant shall have compul-
sorry process for obtaining witnesses in his ia
yor.
9th. That he shall have the assistance of
counsel for defence
9th. That there is no provision made for the
Immediately.
Third. The sth section is in violation of
the provision of the Constitution of the United
states that excessive bail shall not be required.
Fourth. There probably are other unconstitu-
tional provisions in the bill that have escaped
me from the necessarily hasty perusal | have
been compelled to give it.
All which is most respectfully submitted.
III, T. HAYNER