The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1854-10-04
Tho Lazy Constitutional.

just decided, Mt the circnit session held $
at Newfane. the case Of the State as Par /
kcr, oae of Tarbells rumsellers In South q
Royalton. The case was tried in the
Windsor County Conrt about year ago /.
(it being for supdry violations of the
liquor law and the respondent found !
guilty. Exceptions were taken on the |
ground that the reference of the law '
to the people rendered it unconstituton.
al. The case was argued before tho Su- ,
rrene Court in this village last spring.
and the opinion of the Court was with
held until last week, when it was dciv-
cred at the circuit session by Judge
Redfeld. The decision fully sustains
the consttutionali,y of the law in tina.
particular, and must add fresh laurels to
the already high reputation of the Su-
prcmc Court of Vermont
The follwing very brief report of the
decision has been kindly furnished us by
a member of the bar who was present at
its delivery, and committed it to paper,
from the Judges lips Perhaps some
of our saplings at the bar in this village
may look upon it as dislainfnlly as they
did upon Judge Rcd6clds able opinion
in the HabeaS Corpm. case. Can't help
it if they do, tits lac as well as sound
common sense Temp Standard.
REDFTELD, J. (After noticing Ger.
tain objections which were taken to
the form of tho indictment, and over
ruling them.) 1t was made a ques-
ton, whether the statute came into
force in March or December. In
Bancroft .. Dumas, 81 VT, it was
held no objection, that the operation
Of law might be suspended by the
EXPIRE ssed will of the people. In the
statute of 1916 the very vital princi.
pie of the statute, whether licenses to
a limited extent, or prohibition, should
be a law, was submitted to the people
In this statute nothing was submitted,
except the time at which it should 60
| into operation. Far less was made de,
pendent upon tho will oftho people her..
C than in the statute of 1916. Between
!, March and December the operation of
the statute did depend upon the con-
tingency Of the vote Of tho people
:, But in JoM cases we think this very
9 proper discretion to be submitted to
> the will of the people. In the statute
4 Of 1916 there was submitted to the
!. people only the question of discretion
: as to granting licenses generally. Such
# a discretion had always rested in the
y civil authority; and if the legislature
y had the power to repose that discretion
: in the civ il authority, it would be won.
derful, if they might not submit the
:. same question to the people. They
d may submit to the whole people any
$, question which the have power to SUBJ
C nit to any subordinate branch of the
d people. It's proper, in questions Of
q general policy,to submit question Of ex.
IS pediency to the law of the people. II
the session were of sufficient length,
the question might be submitted during
its continuance and if not of sufficient
length, there is no objection to inser-
ting provision, that the coming in
h force of the law shall depend upon the
&c expressed opinion of the people. Leg
islation upon these subjects is almos,
!, universally made to conform to the ex-
" pressed will of. the people, ESPECIALLY
in respect to county and town lines.
Congress enacts laws depending upon
a contingency as to the existence Of
foreign revenue and navigation laws
and no question has ever been made as
to the propriety of so doing. The
New York courts, in regard to their
School Law, endqavor to distinguish
between ordinary contingencies aud the
expressed will Of the people by general
l. suffrage. The contingency should
have some connection with the opera
ton of the statute. And in this case,
the contingency in respect to the time,
deferred the coming in force of the law
to date subsequent to the next scs..
sion, was not only proper, but highly
, commendable. In the Michigan casc,
" the most cogcnt argument put forth
against the law is, that the legislature
never declared that the bill should be
come a law until 1S70,-which gave
il. the bill a frivolous aspect. That look
n cd more like an evasion OF responsible.
t. ity by the legislature, than any thing
,e in the statute of this State. Here
d. the legislature determined the ques-
W ton Of expe dicncy, and provided thai
y the law should come in force in March;
N and if no meeting of the people had
f. been held, it would then have become
Il law This distinguishes the case
Or from that of Michigan. 1t is admitted
of by all, that law depending upon a
RS general contingency is valid. 1t is
fallacious to attempt to distinguish be-
tween that and the contingency Of o
IS popular vote. The policy of license
or prohibitory law depends upon the
state of public feeling upon the sub
y ject and it is perfectly proper for the
ie legislature, by any proper mode, to
u ascertain that condition of things.
4. They may adjourn, to await the ac'
N ton of the people, or they may mo
Is vide, as here, for tho mode of ascer,
1t tanning that feeling, and defer the op'
a. Grafton of the law, dependent upon
Of that feeling, until after another ses,
rs sion of the legislature. In all great
D. moral questions of this character, the
= efficacy of the law must depend upon
q "a