Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1854-10-06
The Temperance Law Consti-
tutional.

The Supreme Court of Vermont
has Just decided, at the circuit ses-
sion held at Newiane, the CT sc OF
the State Us. Parker, one of Tar
bells rumsellers 10 South Royalton.
The case was tried in the Windsor
County Court about a year ago (t
being for sundry violations Of the
liquor law and the respondent
found guilty. Exceptions were taken
on the ground that the reference of
the law TO the people rendered il
unconstitutional. The case was
argued before the Supreme Court in
this village last spring, and the
opinion Of the Court was withheld
until last week, when il was delivered
at the circuit session by Judge Red
field. The decision fully sustains
the constitu,iona!ity of the law in
that particular, and must add fresh
lau,cls to the already high reputation
of the Supreme Court Of Vermont.
The following very brief report Of
the decision has been kindly furnish
ed us by a member Of the bar who
was present at its delivery, and COM
milted il TO paper from the Judges
lips. Perhaps some of our saplings
at the bar in this village may look
upon il as disdainfully as they did
upon Judge Red6elds able opinion
in the Habeas Corpus case. Can't
help it If they do, it is good lao as
well as sound common sense.
REDrIELD, J. (Afier noticing
certain objections which were taken
TO the form of the indictment, and
overriding lhem.) II is made
question, whether the statute came
in force in March, or December.--
In Bancrcf v. Dumas, 81 w., it
was held no objection, that the
operation OF law might be suspend
ed by the expressed will Of the peo-
pie. In the statute of 1916 the
very vital principle Of the statute,
whether licenses 10 a limited extent,
or prohibition, should be the law,
was submitted to the people. In
this statute nothing was submitted,
except the time at which it should
go into operation. Far less was
made dependant upon the will Of
the people here, than in the statute
of 1916. Between March and de-
cember the operation OF the statute
did depend upon the contingency of
the vote oil the people. But in both
cases we think this a very proper
discretion to be submitted to the
will Of the people. In the statute Of
lS46 there was submitted 10 the peo-
pie only a question Of discretion as
to granting licenses generally. Such
a discretion had always rested in the
civil authority; and il the legislature
had the power 10 repose that discre-
ton in the civil authority, it would
be wonderful, il they might not sub
mi, the same question to the whole
people. They may submit to the
whole people any question which,
they have power to submit to any
subordinate branch Of the people,
It is proper, in questions Of general
policy, to submit questions Of tho
general expediency Of the law to the
people. II the session were of
sufficient length, the question might
be submitted during its continuance
and if not Of sufficient length, there
is no objection to inserting provis-
ion, that the coming in force Of the
law shall depend upon the expressed
opinion Of the people. Legislation
upon these subjects is almost uniyer.
sally made to conform to the express
sed will Of the people,-especially in
respect TO county and town lines
Congress frequently enas,s laws de-
pending upon a contingency as to
the existence Of specified foreign
revenue and navigation laws and
no question has ever been made as
to the propriety of so doing. The
New York courts, in regard to their
School Law, endeayor TO distinguish
between ordinary contingencies and
the expressed will of the people by
general suffrage. But such distinc-
ton is Elusive. The contingency
should have some connection with
the operation Of the statute. And
in this case, the contingency in re-
spect to the tine, deferring the COM
ing in force of the law 10 date
subsequent to the next session. was
no; only proper, but highly commend
able. In the Michigan case. the
most cogent srgumen, put forth
against the law is, that the iegisla-
lure never declared that the bill
should become law until $780,
which gave the bill frivolous aspect
That look ed more like an evasion Of
responsibility by the legislature, than
anything in the statute Of this State.
Here the legislature determined the
question Of exped'ency, and provided
that the law should come in force in
March; aud il no meeting Of the
people had been held, il would then
have become . law. This distin-
cuisines the case from that in Aichi.
gan. Il 10 admitted by all, that .
IA