Spirit of the age. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1849-1865, 1854-05-24

OtSoh VI A4NtAOA " dS lnOtO sd
cred than liberty and life? The Legisla-
ture of this State have, time after time pro-
vided that articles used in violation of law,
might be searched for, seized and destroy
ed, and no suggestion was ever made that
these laws were unconstitutional.
The Constitution provides, indeed, that
searches and seizures shall not be unreason.
able. But how can an act be regarded as
unreasonable, which is nothing more than
what Is necessary to carry law into exc
cution ? And what right has an individu-
al to complain of an act, which he himself
has rendered necessary by his own suspici-
Gus and unlawful conduct?
1t has been said by high dignitary in
neighboring State, that mans house is
his CASTLE that it cannot legally be search
ed, although the occupant is charged with
treason or murder, and that the only de-
Walton from this principle is in cases of
searches for stolen property, which are al
lowed upon the ground that they are de.
signed to restore it to its lawful owners
[ know of no such rule in any system of
jurisprudence, 1t is contrary to the whole
spirit of the common law. A dwelling
house is castle to peaceablc, law abiding
citizens not citadel for enemies of the
State. Such doctrine as that contended
| for, would enable man to make his house
an asylum for felons, and depot for the
tools of counterfeiters and burglars. ANY
malicious villain, could by filling his place
Of residence in a populous city, with casks
apparently containing powder, and barring
his doors against the police, strike terror
into the inhabitants, and drive them from
their homes.
Many persons manifest much alarm at the
idea that presumptive evidence is to bold
sufficient proof of breach Of the law. But
this is familiar doctrine in courts Of ju4tice.
Thousands have been convicted of theft,
merely on the evidence resulting from the
possession Of stolen property. The pre-
sumptive proof arising from finding articles
belonging TO victim of murder, when un,
accounted for, has carried many criminals to
the gallows. The difficulty of proving in
nocence in all such cases is greater than it
would be, when a person is charged on pre-
sumptive evidence, with selling liquors con-
trary to law.
Such captious objections always have been
made, and always can be made, to any law
which is sufficiently stringent to be etfectual
for the prevention of crime. A resort to
such grounds Of opposition furnishes pre-
sumptive proof, that the person who does it,
is opposed to the principles of the law, and
does not wish it to be etfectual Sober, in
dustrious, peaceable, patriotic citizens, de-
mand stringent laws. They have no fears
fOf o1ieri1s or magistrates. Tier domlcli;
are as secure from intrusion, and their pro-
perty from seizure under prohibitory liquor
law, as under law against swindling. Leg.
islatures, and jurists ought to regard the
wishes of this class, rather than those who
never look at law, except to see how tc
evaGe it.
Much discussion has arisen on the ques
ton, whether process can constitulionally is
sue against property, without notice to the
owner. Doubtless, when the owner can b
discovered, he should be regularly serv'
ed with process. But when he intention
ally conceals his ownership, the well knowl
maxim applies, that no man can take advan
tage of his own wrong. 1t would be strange
indeed, if the owner Of nuisance coulC
make it perpetual, by skulking and thus a
voiding legal process.
It being then within the power of tn
Legislature to pass such law, the most dill
fcut question to solve is, whether such
law ought to be made, which resolves itse
into the question, whether it is demande
by the voice of the people.