Demoine courier., 1855-03-15
For the Demo;ne Courier.
THE PROHIBITORY LIQUOR LAW.

THE PROHIBITORY LIQUOR LAW.
Mr.. EpIToR:-In a former article
attempted to show, and think not with
out success, that our General Assembly
possesses the right TO prohibi! altogether
and absolutely, the Introduction and traf.
fc within the borders Of the State, of in.
toxica,ing liquors, and as a necessary
result of this right of absolute exclusion,
the power 10 provide for their introduce
ton and traffic upon such CONDITIONS and
limitations as will be most conducive to
the interests Of The State. 1t was fur.
ther maintained tha! il was fully compe
ten, FOR the General Assembly 10 declare
intoxicating liquors kept in violation OF
law, shall be seized and destroyed, and
that, too, without mourning any obliga.
lion TO make compensation 10 such lille.
gal keeper therefor.
| now propose TO show that the pro.
cess and proceedings provided for in the
law under consideration, are conlormable
TO The constitution.
The process provided in tie law is a
warrant of seizure. And the question
now presented is, can the General AS
sembly authorize affects or properly held
in such a manner as to ehliile The pos
SCISSOR to no right of property therein, to
be seized by a warrant, and held until
their character may be determined!-
Certainly no one will deny his. Ii is
jus, as competen, for the Legislature Ia
provide that such property may be seiz-
ed and held under a warrant, as il would
be TO provide tina, the receiver of stolen
goods may be arrested, and the goods
themselves seized upon a warrant and
held, until the question shall be settled,
as 10 whether they are stolen or not; or
that the property of a debtor may be
seized by writ OF attachment and held
until the question of Indebtedness shall
be settled, yet everybody knows lha,
such are the provisions of the law in
reference to the latter cases
The only question. it seems to me,
which can be raised under the law is as
10 the basis Of The writ of seizure. |,
matters not by what il is designated
whether warrant, attachment, capias or
anything else. SO that i. has a consli,u
tional basis. .
The 4lh amendment 10 the constitution
of the United States, and the 9Th section
Of our bill Of rights, say thai 'no war
rant shall issue but on probable cause,
supported by oa'h or affirmation, partic
ularly describing the place TO be search
ed and the things to be seized" The
prerequisites 10 the issuance of the
warrant prescribed in the liquor law,
may be found IN section 8, and are iden
,ical with those required in our Bill of
Rights, and The Constitution of The U. S.
This 9th section requires, before a war
rant can issue, hat three persons shall
make oath or affirmation that intoxicating
liquors, to be particularly described, are
kept in violation of law, in any place
particularly described and by a person
particularly described, and upon proba-
bic cause appearing. the justice before
whom the oath or aft mat on is made, is
required TO issue warrant Of seizure.
After the warrant is issued and the
liquor seized, notice IS to be given to
parties interested and a trial had, which
trial may or may not be before a jury,
as the parties desire. These provisions
Of the liquor law are so obviously con.
stitulional, it seems to me a total waste
Of time to argue them. May l not ask,
then, who can give an authority or reason
why the Liquor Lao is moi, constitution
al! If any IN, lie. him do it, and
pledge myself his authority aud reason
shall be refuled.
The constitutional question involved
in the law, having been thus disposed Of
| shall, in a future article give some ar.
gumen,s, and present I'M consitera,
tons in fayor of the policy of The law.
S. F. P.
E The Romans AdU0cate Is a very
meat weekly, published by ANNE E.