Indiana American. [volume] (Brookville, Ind.) 1833-1861, 1855-11-23
WHOLE NUMBER 1893.

ulate within such limits as not substnn-
tally 70 impair the remedy. - thAt
would indirectly impair the obligation
Of the contract itself. Gantly's Les.
see v. Ewing. How. u. S. Rep, 707-
Regulations within constitutional
limits, we have no doubt. If efficiently
enforced. win accomplish. as We have
said. nearly all that can reasonably Be
desired. e t.-t
The legislature. We will add. may
undoubtedly require the forfeiture OF
such particular portions Of liquor As
shall be kept for use in violation Of
proper regulations, as IN the case Of
gunpowder stored in populous city,
and this forfeiture will be adjudged By
the Judiciary; see Cotter v. Doty,
Supra ; but neither all the gunpow-
der nor liquor in the State. accompan.
led by the prohibition Of the further
manufacture and use Of the article,
can be forfeited on account Of the i'm
proper use of a given quantity. be-
cause the entirety Of neither Of the
the articles is nuisance. II il not
pretended to be so as 10 guDpowder,
and we think we have shown Il is not
50 AS 70 liquor.
SO il is doubtless competent for the
Legislature to establish proper police
regulations 70 prevent the introducing
Of foreign paupers, &c.. for there is =
palpable difference between excluding
a foreign, aud expelling citizen pau
per. The Constitutional Convention
thought it might have power 70 pro-
hibit the ingress Of foreign. while IL
might not compel the egress Of resi-
dent negroes.
SO, by such regulations. may the
introduction Of nuisances be prevent
ed for there is wide difference be-
tween assuming 10 declare that Civ
en- thing is a nuisance. and the prohib-
ting OF the introduction of what is
conceded, or shall turn out 70 be, a
nuisance.
And, in fact. the restrictions in the
constitution upon the Legislative pow
er may operate for the benefit Of those
living under. and in some sense par
ty to. its provisions, and not for that
Of strangers 1t win not be denied
that but for the constitution and laws
Of the United States which impose
the restriction, the State. as an inde-
pendent sovereignty, might exclude
frvm her borders all foreign liquors,
whether nuisances or not, unless in
deed. the doctrine upon which Great
Britain was defended in oicing trade
with China at the cannon's mouth be
correct, that 10 this day Of Christian
civilization, It is the duty Of all ma
tons to admit universal reciprocal
trade and commerce, doctrine, not
yet. we think, Incorporated into the
code of international law.
And 1t would not follow that, be-
cause the State might prohibit the in
trodoction Of foreign wheat. she could
therefore, prohibit the cultivation Of IL
within the State by her own citizens
The right Of the State TO prevent the
introduction Of foreign object does
not depend upon the fact of their be-
ing nuisances, or offensive otherwise
but she does it, when not restrained BY
the constitution or laws Of the United
States inthe exercise Of her sovereign
will.
This, however. is topic involving
questions Of power between the State
and Federal Governments which We
do not intend discussing in the pres
ent opinion. We limit ourselves here
to the question Of the power Of the
legislature over the property and pur-
suits Of the citizen under the State con-
stitution. The restrictions which we
have examined upon the legislative
power Of the State were inserted in
tho constitution 70 protect the minority
from the oppression Of the majority,
and all from the usurpation Of the
Legislature. the members of which,
under our plurality system Of elec-
tons. may be returned by q minority
Of the people. They should. there
fore be faithfully maintained. They
are the main safe guards 70 the per-
sons and. property Of the State.
II Is easy TO see that when the peo-
pie are smarting under losses from de-
preciated bank paper. feeling might
be aroused that would. under our plu-
rality system. return q majority to
the legislature. which would declare
all banks a nuisance, cop6scate their
paper, and the buildings from which
Il issues.
So with railroads. when repeated
Wholesale murders are perpetFaied By
some Of them. And. in Great Brit
ain and Frsncc, we have examples Of
the conliscation Of the property Of the
churches even: which. here. the. sams
constitution that protects the dealer IN
beer. would render safe from invasion
by the Legislative power.
In our opinion. for the reasons given
above. the liquor act Of 1855 h void.