Meigs County telegraph. [volume] (Pomeroy [Ohio]) 1848-1859, 1854-09-26
Si1ca Co6si1nifSS 4 / lon i ! Is. 81 Z =

this place-Judges Nash Whiman and
Peck on The Bench. ii being generally
known ,ha, the question of The CONSTITUTION:
ality OF the Liquor Law would be up f0E
hearing, considerable anxiety has baenefell
county TO learn the tesuI, as
many bbstaeles have been throwd in lhe
way Of the execution Of The law on ,he :
ground Of q sort OF outside decision agninst
The law some momhs since By Chief Justice Z
Corwin, upon which opinion anorneys and
Others have led offenders 10 Indulge in the
hope of acquitlaI, and which opinion has
e,nboldened violations Of the law, and been
the means Of producing much litigation,
cost, irouble and vindlcdye feeling through.
ou, lhe.eniire Slaic.id. XII
1--WE believe the Court has taken the cor.
rect common sense view Of the question:
andthartheir opinion will bo re.affirmed by
the Supreme Courtifi, ever comes before q
full Bench. Asa mslter of interest 10 The
entire State, and high Judicial opinion ,lia.
will ailratnauen,ion and be cited as author.
It,y hereafter, we aake pleasure IN giving the
opinion of the Couri in full. s
State of Ohio Ia the District Court
l,ilp 6,l vs. ii,t for "a nfNnty. of
John laurence Aihea 80
duplication for The aliorancJ y u Writ of !,
Error to The Probate Judge Of said Conn
IYtiy. ta 4llt ~ 4,j
Judge Whimhn delivered the opinion Of
the Court. which was in substance on The
lpoinHe here mentioned as follows.
This isiaiI application for The allowance
ofa writ Of error, 10 the Probate Court, based
among other ibihgs, upon The postum
slamed oy pluiniiff pin error thai, the
ac, entitled "anaclto provide against The
Eevils resulting from the use OF Intoxicating
liqnofs in the S,a,e Of Ohio, passed May !,
1854, ,";is sunconsiituIionsl. Counsel furihe
plsintff in, error contends lha.,his ac.is
Unconstitutional on the grounds:
lsI. Thatihis acl was never read ,hrss
times prior TO lis passage.
+ 3D. That is alprohibilory ac,, and not
merely an &c. to regulate the sale Of spir;lu.
Eous liquors, fliae
We are referred 10 lhe opiaion Of Chief
Justice Coiwins given at Chambers 10 sus.
Tain the plaiunffinerror. For this opinion,
teIerence issmade 10 newspaper report Of
This case. TEisis no, very good evidence;
but If ii is ID BE- believed, The learned Judge
was, in our opinionclearly iD The Wrong. I.
Twas claimed ID be- yuid,. be causci, had snot
lbeen read upon three several days The
Eprescnt law, itsoppears was iuser,ed as
an amendment. onahe engrossmen. Of Tho
; bib which bad already been twice read -
Iiwas then read third lime, and put on ils
lind plssage in,he Senate. This. we be-
lieye, is in accordance with parliamentary
. lawa When abilis once Introduced on a
subject, !. IS opened 10 all amendments ger.
rnane 10 the subj embraced in il; and H.
1 clsna,,ers' no, whether the umendmeni is made
h |in deiail, or by striking out all af,cr The en-.
! ac,lbg clause, and Inserting an en,ire new
j bilIin form pertaining 10 tho subject mal,er
! Of ,he original bill, and no one ever before
heard ,ha, such an amendmen, had 10 ba
: read onilhsee separate days. & The bill, not,
e the amendment, is 10 be read on three sepa.
ra.e days This clause, that bill is 10 be
]. read on three several days is no new pro-