The Perrysburg journal. [volume] (Perrysburg, Ohio) 1853-1861, 1854-09-23
District Court-The Liquor Law decided
CONSTITUTIONAL

this pIaCe-JuupeS NASH, Wnltman and
Peck on the Bench. 1t being generally
known that the question of the constitution
ality of the Liquor Law would be up for
hearing, considerable anxiety has been felt
throughout the county TO learn the result, as
many obstacles have been thrown in the way
of the execution Of the law on the ground
of a SORT of outside decision against the law
made some months since by Chief Justice
Corwin, upon which opinion attorneys and
Others have led offenders to indulge in hope
of acQuiltal, and which opinion has enboI-
dened violations of the law, and been the
means of producing much litigation, cost,
trouble AMI vindictive feeling throughout
the entire State.
We believe the Court have taken the cor
rect, common sense view of the question,
and that their opinion will be rc-afIirmed by
the Supreme Court if the question ever comes
before ii full hanch As matter of interest
10 tn, entire State, and high judicial opin-
ion that will attract attention and be cited
as authority hereafter, we take pleasure in
giving the opinion of the Court in full.
VS.. In the District Court for
John Lawrence ! the County Of Athens
Application 19r the allowance of Writ of
Error to the Probate Court Of said COun-
ty.
Judge Whitman delivered the opinion of
the Court, which was in substance, on the
points here mentioned, as follows
This is an application for the allowance
of a writ Of error, TO the Probate Court.
based among other things, upon the position
claimed by plaintiff i'll error that, the act
entitled AN act to provide against the evils
resulting from the sale of intoxicating IL
Quors in the State Of Ohio, passed May |
1854 is unconstitutional. Counsel for the
plaintiff in error contends that this act is
unconstitutional on the grounds;
lst. That said act was never read three
times prior to its passage
3D. That it is a prohibitory act, and not
merely an act 10 regulate the traffic in spir-
i,uous liquors.
We are referred to an opinion of Chief
Justice Corwin, given at Chambers, to sus-
tain the plaintiff in error. For this opinion.
reference Is made to a newspaper report Of
this case This is not very good evidence !;
but, if ii is TO BE- believed, the learned Judge
was. in our opinion, clearly in the wrong.
1t was claimed that the law was void, be-
cause it had not been read upon three Seve-
raj days. The present law, it appears, was
inserted as an amendment on the engross-
ment Of the bill, which had already been
twice read 1t was then read third time
ond put on its final passage in the Senate.
This, we believe, is in accordance with the
parliamentary law. When bill is once
introduced on subject, it is open to all
amendments germane to the subject embraced
in it and it matters not whether the amend
mcnt is made in detail, or by striking out
all after the enacting clause and inserting
an entire new bill in form pertaining 10 the
subject matter of the original bill, and no
one ever before heard that such an amend
mcnt had to be read on three separate days
The bill, not the amendment, is to be read
on three several days. This clause, that a
bill must be read on three several days, is
no new provision it is mere copy of the
provision contained in the old constitution.
We have had, therefore, INV years of expe-
rencc under this clause, and this is the first
time that ever such all objection was raised
and what was done in this case has been
done with almost every law which has been
passed. Every legislator will rccolIect innu
merabe instances Of just such amendments
as the one made in this act.
The Court, therefore, have no doubt of the
invalidty of this objection, and that the
act was we'll passed
We have not noticed the question whether
evidence can be adduccd to disprove the con-
A. 4 ,,C L. n