The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1854-07-19
The Temperance Law.

Below we publish the decision OF Judge
Corwin, on this law. 1t is proper to say
that this decision cannot effect the law
unless it should be ooncurred in by a ma
jority of the Judges OF the Supreme Court.
That it will be concurred in we think very
doubtful. We believe it will not. We say
this much that those concerned may not
subject themselves to the penalties Of the
law, believing it to be unconstitutional.
This decision, which bears internal evil
dence OF having been written out by Judge
Corwin himself, contains some things tha,
sound strange. coming from Judge Of
the Supreme Court. After quoting from
the new constitution, article Cd. section 16.
which provides that "every bill shall be
fully and distinctly read on three separate
days. unless, in case OF urgency. three
fourths Of the House. in which it shall be
pending, shall dispense with the rule. -
the Judge goes on to say. '.rhe old con-
stitution contained no provision against
the evils Of hasty legislation; and the re-
strictive measures embraced in the new
constitution are part of the remedies which
were designed to be corrected in the new
constitution"
Let US see now whether "ths old con-
stitution contained no provision against
the evils Of hasty legislation Article /,
section II, reads: "Eyery bill shall be
read on three differen, days in each house,
unless, in case OF urgency, threeiourths
Of the house where such bill is so pending.
shall deem it expedient TO dispense with
this rule: and every bill having passed both
houses, shall be signed by the speakers ol
their respective houses" Ifthat is not as
restrictive as the new constitution, we can
not understand the import of language.
As we have said above. we say again,
let no one violate the law, believing it not
to have been constitutionally passed. We
are of opinion that it will turn out differ
emily, but we may be mistaken.
The Urbana Citizen and Gazette gives
the following as the decision Of JUDGE
CoRwIN on this law:
The Judge. after promising few re-
marks in opposition to that class of ;egis-
lation which prescribes what man shall
eat and what he shall drink, and where
wi,hal he shall be clothed, proceeded to
saw. that the Government has discharged
its functions when it provides for tho pro-
lection of The citizens personal liberty,
personal security and private property.
II has been urged here, in favor OF sus-
tanning the law under confederation. that
Judge Warden, Of Columbus, has caused
to be published an elaborate opinion, full.
ly sustaining the constitutionality Of the
law; and that this opinion is fully concur
red in by Judge Swan and John w. An-
drews, Esq, Of Columbus. Il is suffi-
cient 10 say Of this argument. that these
gentlemen received a handsome fee for
the utterance Of that opinion, and have
been known to prosecute for violation Of
the law, under that opinion.
The Constitution Of the State Of Ohio.
section 9th Of the schedule. is as follows:
"No license to traffic in intoxicating
LIQUORS shall be hereafter granted in this
State, but the General Assembly may. by
law, provide against the evils resulting
therefrom."
From this it is evident that the Constitu.
ton OF the State of Ohio sanctions the
traffic in "intoxicating liquors" but at the
same time the General Assembly 10 au.
thorized to provide against the evils re-.
sulting from the sale Of intoxicating Ii.
ouors. Without. however stopping to con.
slider whether this is aprohibitory law, or