The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1855-12-27
NUMBER 119

that nuisances may be ahated, removed and de-
stroyed., II Wend. $50, 2 Dana 158. Blackf
534. Is Wend. 397 IL Pick. ASP. 12Id.
184. / Rich. 49, 13 How. U. S. R. 518.l
The last was the W Wheelihg, bridge case in,
which, although the interests Of Pennsylvania
and Virginia were involved, when declared a,
nuisance, it was ordered to be abated.. This
was certainly property.
Slavery was abolished in the North Wes-a
tern Territory by the ordinance of 1787e1l
Black. 90 1t said large sums are invested
in .astillerie;. They are probably small IN
comparison to the money Invested in the slave
trade when 1t was outlawed and declared pi--
racy. Property engaged in smuggling isa
forfeit and freqently confscated. a6!slsoq sia
Liquors, under certain circumstances, the.
Legislature have declared nuisances- Does
this Court know that as used in comnaefcc,,
they do not work hurt or damage to the:pubz
lie? or to the public morals? that they do not
produce idleness, yagrahGy and crime? Such
a conclusion involves an absurdity no less than
that this Court knows that to be false which
the rest ofmankind know to be true, sz1H7Fsa
- The act is said to interfere withmen in the
pursuit of happiness That is vague term
which has no relation to relative rights or du-
ties. Allowing what is claimed for it, there
stuld be an end Of the criminal code. 1--WE
prohi bit marriages between whites and blacks,
and make them felonies. The State deems the
product of such marriages and Of commerce in
liquors. an undesirable class Of persons, and
seeks to prohibit them.t ~ SD agFud sd}, 70
A distinction is taken between the regul1tioa
and prohibition of tratfic and our prohibitions
o 50 es to minors, I'll. K n persons and indians,
are called regulations, white if no sales caribe
made it lis called prohibition. One, it is adj
mitted is constitional, while the other is said
not to be. This. argument has great respect
to the rights of the vender, but none to those
of the buyer, whose unalieanable rights are as
sacred as those of the former The same dis
tinction Is sought tosbe made between retail.
ing which We have often prohibited and
wholesaling. 1t is difficult to see how the mere
choice of words can have so great an influence
upon a mars unalenabis rights ror how it il
that he can have anunquestioned constitutional
right to buy large quantity, but no right at
all to buy small one, .;b.,I Trs.sfe,.6iyibri
1t is admitted by the appellant that the evils
resulting from commerce in liquors may be
regulated by imposing a tax for the license.
The taxing power is said to be unlimited, and
that it may amount to a prohibition. Govern-
ment is not mere theory 1t is useful only as
it is practical. To denv men their rights in
plain terms, has at least the merit Of open
straight ht-forwardness. = If that eaaffot be done,
a false pretense of raising revenue; which at
once sells inducements to crime, and Eleyies
tax TO pay for it, is not a means that will sane
tify the end ~ @'Hisa' sii'i'~lsI ~. ")Joa
The admitted power to regulate includes the
power to prohibit. Il Kent's Conn., 2 eG. 43I
On this principle the embargo laws were ,sus-
tained
The law is said to operate unequaily on
certain classes of citizens. The inherent i'm
perfection of human laws would render them
invalid if this objection were sufficient
This point was discussed and the fallacy of the
objection clearly shown by the celebrated
proclamation of President Jackson of7Dec.
10, 1882, which Judge Story declared to be
among the ablest commentaries ever offered
upon the Constitution. Storys Com. on the
Con, 1906.
The 5th section Of the act, providing for the
appointment of agents to vend for purposes
.deemed hwful,i said to conflict with the 23d
article of the bill Of rights, which declares chat
the General Assembly shall not grant to any
citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immu
mites which upon the same terms shall not
equally belong to all citizens" 1t was correct
ly insisted by the appellant, that the agent was
an officer. Whatever that section may mean,
it is evident that the privileges and immuni-
ties there mentioned can have no application
to officers or official duties, for the plain reason
that all men cannot be in office. ~ .-
The remainder of the opinion discusses the
details of the law, showing that the right Of
trial by jury is not taken away, but expressly
Irecognized; that it does not as insisted, violate
the 18th section of the 4th article OF the Con-
Istitution, by embodying subjects foreign to
each other; referring to the constitutional and
Legislative history bearing upon that provision;
and that those portions of the act, which au-
thorize the appointment of agents to manufac-
ture and yend, do not conflict with the 23d
sectin of the 4th article of the Constitution,
which requires all laws to be of uniform opc-
ration throughout the State.
The details of the Law above reGsrred to,
formed the chief topics Of discussion in the first
argument of the case, on the part Of the ap-
pellane. The opinion, of which the foregoing
is an abstract, was drawn up, before the last
argument was heard, which was devoted al
most exclusively to the subject Of the power
of prohibition. A press Of other duties has pre-
vented any material changes in the original
draft.
| The conclusion upon the whole case is that
the law, so far as this case brings it before US,
| is valid throughout, and that the judgment
below ought to be affirmed,
wHOLEyALE DRY GOODS.