New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-12-29
THE LIQUOR LAW IN RHODE ISLAND.
F,or III, Providence Journal De-. q.

NLPRLAE COUNT, lstslay, Dec 20 l'di
The State Jabez Is. Potter, complainant, sgt.
James Suew-Ths was a complaint against the de.
PENDANT for "keepug or suffering to be kept on hs
premises possessI0us, or under his charge ale,
wine" sc. The penalty for this ohenss Is G. sne
of ego or impriscUmei for thirty days. Subsequent
to the seuing OF this complaint, warrant of search
ives issued under the uinth section Of the act upon
which certain hquors found in the possession Of the
def. nc ant were seized.
la the Court OF Magistrates the defendant raised
certain constitutional objections TO the law, are hey
were certified TO the Supreme Court uuoer the sutue,
and ere argued by the AttOrney'Generai for com.
plainspt and l.. Salisbury, tq for noe defendant.
His Honor Judge Bray'on delivered the opinion Of
ire Court
l. lie fret objection il that the law provides for
taking prvste property for public use without just
compensation.
There is no analogy between ths taking private
property for pubic ana adju1glDg property for
tc,t fo- crime sfrd this objection il not valid
2 Tire act p-ovides thst it shall not be necessary
particularly 20 & scribe .be kinds or packages Of
liquor 20 be sebrcaed for and so conflicts with the
Constitution, which requires that search warrant
She describe as nearly as may be tie persons aud
thirgs to DO sc zeU. But the De ,cription may De
certain he nature OF the thing will admit and yet
not ces crbe particularly the kinds or packages OF
liquor. And this objection il not valid
3. Tie act provides that any anne ndrnent5 may be
made ard 20 conflicts with the constitution. which
provides that the accused shall be informed OF the
nature and cause OF the accusation against him. But
an Amendment is rot rev accusation. Anything
which amounts 10 that ceases to be an amendment,
and goes hey ond Ia. the Jaw authorizes. Besides.
this par, Of the act may be void and the res. valid
This objection, therefore, has no validity
L. The act provides for the Obstruction Of property
se=ed .ih0m any proof that 4 ras held for sale, and
% conflicts nth ne C0RstiVf'Or which provides that
the accused shall rot be deprived OF life, liberty or
property unless by the judgment OF his peers or the
law of the land.
Tn, Is a raid objecfios. The act provides for the
seizure of liquors then provides that upon the
conviction OF the party in whose possession they are
found, Of selling keeping for sale. liquors d the
some kind those seized the liquors seized shall be adj
Judged forfeit and destroyed; anc proof is required
that the liquors seized to be destroyed ever
kept for sale. This part Of the act is unconsttu-
tiCnal.
5. 1t is objected that the act provides for two pun
shments for the same oferse nasmuch a. by the Attn
seoiisn man may be convicted Of selling and by the
9Th section may he convicted as common seller for
the saue Gales. This question cannot occur in thus
case, sud opinion IL given upon it.
Il. this case far anything appears to the court
there is objection 10 the law or the form OF pro-
ceejiDg
The result Of the decision is that in the particular
case before the court, the proceedings were valid,
and the conviction right but by an o5ter dicfs~
the court pronounce the CLAUSE - the iar, as
n nor stands unconstitutional