New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-05-19

on the bench, and now let US look for a moment
at his opinion touching the same questions I'M
der the present altered circumstances.
The Counsellor in giving the rule of cOnsiruc-
tion, which as be now contend. ought to be ap-
piled to the exception in the frst section Of the
Prohibitory Law, and in his structures upon the
22d section, grants that "these clauses (of
" tie 22d sec. it must be admitted indicate that
;" the Legislature supposed imported liquor. fell
"within the provisions Of the first section Of
the act" Here then We have distinct adj
mission that the Legislature did intend to abol.
ish the traffic at retail in imported liquors as
beverage. But how does the counsel treat that
intention We quote bis language:
They the clauses Of the 22l Sec canno, be nale
Ia nullify an exception i'm the lst Sec explicit ana
plain IN liz terms which takes them out Of that Sec
ton. and which would be wholly senscess unless ma IL
10 have that effect. These provisions Of the POI See.
ton may with much more reason be rejected IS sE-
prfuous and Hggatory, than to hold that the excep-
ton Is rod and II no effect whGferer'
Here is an exhib ton of the highest order of
legal a,tuteness. To defeat the admitted inten-
tion of the Legislature the counsel assumes that
the alternative is presented of either rejecting
part of the 22d section as HagGiory, or of null
lifying the exception in the LIST section. The
counsel is too shrewd not to have discovered
that if the exception and the clauses in the
22d section, to which he refers, can be con-
strued together, his entire argument respecting
the exemption of imported liquors from the pro-
hibtion of the statute is oyerthrOwn. To sus-
tain his position that imported liquors are ex-
cepted from the statute he must defeat the adj
mittcd intention of the lawmakers. And TO
succeed in that attempt he must present false
issue. Who is so dull that he cannot
see the difficulty with which the counsel was
struggling Had he desired to carry out the in
tention of the Legislature he needed but TO ap-
ply to this case the simple rule that be applied
10 that of Townsey; but that would not answer
the present purpose; he had but to say now as
be then said, statutes must be so construed
and all the parts of statute must be 50 inter
prctcd that the whole may be maintained"
Ii must have been plain to him that this har-
mony in the present instance may be attained
by regarding the twenty-second section as ex-
planatory of the exception in the first section,
as limiting its operation to sales by importers in
ollkluhl phthd-rr. W A'H nc ,Hiuf AH'NV
"clauses, it must be admitted, indicate that the
Legislature supposed imported liquors fell
within the provisions of the first section of the
"act," he might have added consistently with le
gal rules what was said by him in Townley's ease
on a similar question; ." il seems to me that this
sis precisely or nearly the result at which the
Legislature intended to arrive by the passage
"of the act, and fearing that they had not inii-
L" Gated such intention with sufficient clearness
"they inserted this 22d section to make such in
"tention more apparent" But he prefers to
dodge the true point and to lay the foundation
for an inference that the two sections cannot
stand together, By making the ayerment that
one must be rejected nugatOry or the other
must be nullfed, when, in fact, no such alter
native is presented.
We leave this contradiction to be settled By
Judge Beardsley or his present employees, with
the simple question: Should not the law be in
terpreted AS strictly when the liberty OF the
citizen is involved as when its vengeance is to
be executed only on puncheons of alcohol But
times change and men change with them.
Saint in Grape is twice Saint in lawn, and
Judge off the bench may attain as we see to
views on fGndamcn tal questions at law quite
opposite to those he laid down while yet he wore
the ermine.