The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1854-05-13
temperance.
THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

! Mir. button the W Ing Governor of Conncc-
ticut, lately elected, in his Message to the
Legislature, argues the propriety and consti-
tutlonality ola Prohibtory Liquor Law i'll a
manner which shows that for such law no
veto may be expected from him. Referring
to the constitutional question he writes as
follows:
"a body polite which, should, by con-
slitution. restrict its own power in such a
manner as to be unable to secure happiness of
its members, would commit an act of as great
folly as man who should bind his limbs in
letters, 50 that he could not defend himself
against an enemy. 1t cannot be presumed
that our ancestors left such pernicious lcga-
cy to their posterity
Forfeiture of property for criminal offences,
and even for violation of statutes, is as an
cient as the common law itself. Every penal
ty imposed by law amounts to the same thing:
for what difference can it make to citizen,
whether he is confined in Jail, by law, till he
pays one hundred dollars, or whether horse
is taken from him by law, worth one hundred
dollars? And what difference does it make
to him whether the horse is sold, and tie
money put into the treasury, or whether it is
killed fla man by violation of law, can
forfeit his liberty, and even his life, can he not
FRA similar reason forfeit his property! Isa
cask of liquor to he regarded as more sacred
than liberty and lfci The Legislature Of
this State have, time after time, provided that
articles used in violation of law, might be
searched for, seized and destroyed, and 10
suggestion was ever made that these laws
were unconstitutional.
The Constitution provides. indeed, that
searches and seizures shall not be mrcasona-
bic. But how can an act lie regarded as un-
reasonable, which is nothing more tlan what
is necessary TO carry law into execution
/ And what right has an individual to COM
plain Of an act, which he himself has render
cd necessary by his own suspicious and un-
lawful conduct
1t has been said by high dgnitary in a
ncighborng State, that "man's house is his
CASTLE" that it cannot legally be searched,
although the occupant is charged with trta-
son or murder, and that "thc only Deviation
from this principle IS in cases of searches for
stolen property, which are allowed upon tho
ground that they are designed to restore it to
its lawful owners" know of no such rule
in any system of Jurisprudence. 1t is contra
~ to the whole spirit Of the common law A
dwelling house is a castle to poactaLlc law
abiding citizens: not citadel for enemies of
the State. Such a doctrine as that contcndcd
for would enable man to make his house an
asylum for fclons, and depot for the tools of
countclititerS and burglars. Any malicious
william could, by filling his place of residence
in a populous city, with casksapparcntly con-
tanning powder, and barring his doors against
the police, strike terror into the inhabitants.
and drive them fom their homes.
Many persons manifest much alarm at the
idea that prcSumptivc evidence is to be held
sufficient proof of a breach of the law. But
this is familiar doctrine in courts ofiusticc.
Thousands have been convicted of theft, mere
ly on evidence resulting from the possession
of stolen property. The prcsumptivc proof
arising from finding articles belonging to
victim of murder, when unaccountcd for, has
carried many criminals to the gallows. The
difficulty of proving innocence in all such ca
Sos is greater than it would be, when person
is charged on prcsumptivc evidence, with SCI
ling liquors contrary to law.
Such captious objections always have been
made, AMI always can be made, to any law
which is sufficiently stringent TO be cllcctual
for the prevention of crime. Arcsort to such
grounds ofopposition furnishes presumptivc
proof that the person who does it, is opposed
to the principles of the law, and docsnot wish
it to be eitcctual. Sober Industrious, peace
able, patriotic citizens, demand stringent laws.
They have no fears of shclills or magistrates.
Their domicils arc as secure from intrusion,
and their property from seizure, under u pro-
hibitory liquor law, as under law against
swindling. Legislatures and jurists ought to
regard the wishes of this class rather than of
those who never look at law, except to see
how to cvade it."