The Rutland County herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1852-1855, 1854-03-24
GEORGE r. HODGES. r.
DECISION or THE SUPREME COURT
OF MAssACHU sCr-Ts On THE
LIQUOR LAW.


IN order to avoid misapprchension in the
public mind in regard TO the character, cx-
ten, and effect Of tins decision, the under
signed, IN behalf of the State Temperance
Committee, have taken legal counsel upon
the exact character Of the decision, and have
deemed it proper to make brief cxpana-
ton.
!. The decision was erc'B'rey upon the
liih section and It's dependent provisions
and has nothing whatever 20 do with the
other provisions Of the law. The Court
say distinctly that one part of the same
statute may be valid and another part void
The other provisions ofthe law have been
sanctioned by the same Court and are there
fore valid. The erroneous impression has
/ quite extensively obtained that the whole
law was overthrow. We have lcit III full
I force the prohibItory principle, the provi-
sions for single .alcs and common sellers,
| with their cumulative penalties for the sec
/ ond and third offences, ending IN the House
/ of Correction, and the bonds against sub
scquent violations of the law.
The Committee find IN those and other
provisions left, a more efficient liquor law
than any license system that could be de-
sired.
2. The decision fully susiains the princi-
pie Of the nth section. The Court say -
1--WE have no doubt that II Is competent
for the Legislature 10 declare the pusses
sion Of certain articles OF property, either
absolutely or when held IN particular places
aud under particular circumstances, to be
unlawful, because they would be injurious.
obnoxious or dangerous, and by dine pro-
cess of law, by proceeding IN rem, to pro-
vide both for the abatement ofthe nninuce
and the punishment of the offender, By the
seizure and contscaiIon OF the properly, by
the removal, sale, or destruction Of the nox-
ious articles
This sus,ains the right Of seizure, forfeit.
ure and destruction, as plainly as language
can do II yet the report has been indusiri.
ously circulated that lhi principle ofthe sec
ton was oyenuled. In rcmarking upon
the objection generally made TO the consii
tuuonslity of this section, that 1t make.
private property for public use, without
compensation. the Cont say;
ave are Of opinion, that that claim ha.
no bearing, aud no connection with thii
subject"
3, The Court decide--and this is thi
whole OF their dccision--ihat while tn,
thing to be done is right, the mode Of do
ing j, is wrong. In the language of I'll,
Court. the system Of measures directed
and authorized by the statute are uucon
suiuuonal. 1t Is quite apparent that Tia
Count criticised the system Of measures
with entire freedom, and yc, the priacipl
came forth from the trying ordeal unscath
ed.
Now, the only question il, can a consti
iuiional 'sys,em Of measures be devise
forapplying the principle: The same prin
ciple has been repeatedly applied 10 orhe
subjects, and that too under our own Con
aiitution and Bill ofRighls; and 10 .uppo-
that !, canno, be applied 10 this case, Is q
Notwithstanding liquors with q sacrcdnes
that belongs 10 M other article Of PROPERTY
or possession. There Is no cause Of dis
coura cement 10 the friends Of Temperate,
On the coutry, If they do no, suife
themselves TO be deceived as to the exac
character o. the decision, h is qale cles
they viii stand on frmer ground than BE-
fore for the principle Of the li,b sector
Is now settled By the Judicial Poser, an
nothing remains bui u construct the 3e
tails.
Let them adhere To the other provision
Of lhc law, ~bich remain unimpaircd b.
the decision. enforce them yi-orolsi
throughout iae Commonwealth, aud zee
until they obtain an amendment Of the a.
section.
Wa y SrooSrR, I6r ~
loHs T. h,srE u,..,1L,.,,,
D..