New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-05-06

II 4 can, is the best remedy for the acknoyicdrd evil
Ie'u IRON The sale Of such Eqnor in yng The
o. tAhoh nor only OF phlan'hrOpisis but of an cl a o.
zes IN tins state and elsewhere. In some Of the aes
ne experiment has been tred the praciica ef,e, OF
,uc1 law and although contradictory settlements have
,oeh maze ny those who profess 20 speak from personal
ino"cdge The weight Of testimony strongly in favor Of
lis success The constitutonGity Of such law has been
questioned by men Of high legal and political s;aDlin
But, afer thorough examination Of the question A. ~,
entertain the slghte. doubt that such law il not unc
si,uiiona.het it does no. conflict With any provsion
eIhef N ne Constitution Of the United Sater or Of th
Slte ana maj does not Interfere in the lcag. with any
natural ~ hts which may be supposed exist prior TO or
superior 10 any constitution or law.
Experience has abundanv prov ed that
on the fugec should be stringent and cectual ANY at
TEMP TO egane the sale OF spirituous liquors and then
regulate and control by fnes penalties, other punish
men or VOCATION OF the rules prescribed only agra
vates tie evil which it designed to cure ANY law 10 be
eocua must necessarily confer upon the PROPER autbor
lies ne power to seize condemn and destroy the oen1ng
articles Il must authorize under reasonable rules and re-
sircho search for it III stores and dwelling-houses
where leTe II actual pre- umpve evidence show that
the law has been vOated authorize the use of pre-
sunptvc evidence when positive proof cannot be obtained
or however penal be ia other respects it will soon
become dead letter The first inquiry is. therefore,
whether such law u or Is not unconstitutional The clauses
IN tie Constitution Of the United States which have been
urged ainuling such law these THE right of the
people 10 be secure in their persons houses papers and
ehects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall
not be violated; and no warrants shall be issued but upon
"IroDeblc cause supported by oath or affirmation and
particularly describing the place 70 be searched and The
person things to be seized person shall be com
PEELED, il any criminal case be witness against him.
self he deprived of life liberty or property without
due law; shnl private property be taken
for public use without just compensation. These prov
ons nave been decided to be applicable only to laws of
congress and are OF importance this question only
account Of the light which thoy throw similar pro-
visions in the Constitution Of this State.
The provisions in the Constitution of this Sac are:
The people shall be in their persons houses pa
pegs and possessions, from unreasonable searches and
seizures and shall issue TO search any per.
L" things without describing cause supported by
I'm
accused shall have right to be heard By himself or his
counsel 70 demand the nature end cause of The
oii-Le sha not DO Compelled TO give evidence against
nor nc deprived OF Ire, liberty or property, but
by due corise Of law" the property Of no person shall
re akc for public use without jus compensation there
- 10Y ihesc II not all are ie srongcs, express ,ns in
nc Constitution. II viii be by comparison Of them
with those taken from the Constitution Of the United
States hat they explicit. The rights Of citizens
III State efecuay guarded than in the
Of Connecticut. Notp. however can be clearer than
mat y ihese same provisions Is assumed that some
searches and seizures lawful, and that may for
some causes, be deprived Of life liberty and property.
Both may be done, if done by due course Of law. II,
therefore the law pre5crbes particularly where, and how,
probable cause, supported by oath affirmation,
searches to be made and for what and in what
property may be seized and the deprived Of
ii, how ii be claimed that such acts unconstitu-
tonel But laying aside the language of the Consiitu
ton, it well settled principle of law and common
that every rule should be construed to
plish and defeat the object Tor which it adopted
different construction would be suicidal and absurd
body polite which should By constitution restrict s
power such manner 10 be unable to secure tho
happiness Of lis member, would commit act of great
Jolly who should bind his limbs in cttors that
he could not defend himself against enemy. Ii
be presumed that our ancestors lett such perL.cOus leg
aoy 10 their postory.
Forfeiture of property for criminal ofenses and for
violations of statutes, is ancient the law it.
SELF Every penalty imposed by law amounts to the
thing for what difference il make to n citizen, whe-
Their he is is confined in Jail by law till he pays one hun
drCd dollars, whether horse taken from him. by law
worth hundred dollars And what difference does it
make o him whether ihe hore sold, and the money put
al. .I.ti. .n.If &
violation of the law, forfeit his liberty and even his
life he moi, for similar reason forfeit his property
orty and life The Legislature OF this Stale have time
after fine provided that articles led IN violation OF law,
might be searched for seized and destroyed aud no sg
gestion made that these laws were unconShu-
tiona
The Constitution pro, ids, indeed that searches and
seizures shall not he unreasonable. But how can an act
he Gonable which is nothing more Than what neces-
sary to carry law into execution Ana What rSn ms ah
individual 10 complain of act which he himself has rem
derod necessary 10y his own suspicious and unlawful con-
duct
II has been said by high dignary in a neghboring /
state that mans house is his castle that legally
he searched although the occupant is charged with treason
ar murder: and that the only deviation from this pri-
chile in Of searches for stolen property which
are allowed upon the ground that they are designed to
ros!orc ii 10 liz lawful ownos know OF no such rule
IN anv system jurisprudence Ii is contrary 10 the whole
shirt Of The common law. dwcling-houso is castle to
neaccnhe aw-abing citizens; not citadel Tor enemies
Of the Such doctrine as thai contended iG would
enable man make his house asylum for eions ana
the tools OF cOuntcftcNcs ana Dureurs' ANY
malicious villain could by filling his place Of residence IN
popuons city with casks containing powder ana barring
his doors gains. The police strike terror ID The ihhaos
and Dive them from their homes.
Many rcsons manifest much alarm at the idea that pre-
sppty evidence is he held sufficient proof al Dreach
sc The law But this is familiar doctrine IN courts OF TVS
ti,e Thousands have been convicted OF htu mercy on
the evidence resulting from the posses ion OF s,och %
~ The urosumpyc proof arising from hndi'g articles
TO victims of murder, when unaccounel lot mas
carried many criminals the gallows The difficulty OF
moving innocence in I'll such cases Ia greater man wou
io when person charged presunptVe evidence win
selling liquors contrary to law.
such cautious objections always have been made, and
awayg can be made TO any law which is sufficiently strin
gent 10 lie electual for the prevention OF cIlme resort
io such grounds OF opposition furnishes pre- umnve proof
that the person who docs i opposed TO the principles OF
the law and docs not wish il to he caectua sober m
dusriors peacCabo patriotic citizens, demand stringent
laws They have no fears Of sheriff, magistrates Iher
domcils are as from intrusion and their property
tr, m seizure under a prOhiborv liquor law, as uhder
law erinst swindng Legislatures and juri.ts ought to
REGARD the wishes of their class rather than o thoss VINO
never lock AZ a law except 10 see no" 10 o'auc IT,
Much discussion has aiisen the question whether pro-
cesss car consiitutionaly issue against property wOu'
notice ia the owner Doubtless, when The owner can De
discovered he should be sulary served with process
Nm vbfn he nfontionay conceas Lis oU norsh the wei
known maxim applies that no man can a<S eIh'asc VI
lis own yrone. II would bo strange indeed tle owner
Of nuisance could make i perpetual by sAuAing' anu
thon waving legal process. .,
L,iu then clearly within the power OF tie Lesis uie
10 u.ss such law the most difficult question S'iNe Is
VIII ber such law ought he made which resolves Sei
into the question whether is demanded by the voice OF
the people. ,r
This i question which vou gentlemen, ere better quail
fed 10 answer than be- and SHELL rely with confidence
upon vor responding uly the wishes OF constu'
cnts, whcher that is immediate passage OF Pfohbit1-