The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-07-18

tios then he has psrfsc, right 70 say that he Vii %
81 % no other way than on prsssntmsns oy grand
sou.. sba come to the oonoius,on tia. this trial was
objectionable. DO not thins that for that reason
al II may say that that par. only UNIONS atuuo
and that person cannot Be- thus tried that the u
held to BAN But We sas rhatm not Necessary We are
wng 70 meet the question, and do meet II on the
thst .ns no' "a INFAMOUS ana
which requires officers to hold person to bail instead
Of proceeding to trial We say that infamous crime
has tiatnct legal sgLihcstion In the secood sed
statutes, page 702. that
infamous crime is used in any statute 1t snail be
/ by mpriscnmeLt il the State prison, and other
It's argued BY the other side that nssmuch furtuer
provision OF the law declares persons undsr
IT from acting Jurors 10 arising under it, that
therefore 1t Ia 10 BE- regarded al infamous crime
any sen, within the consttu.on nor Is he
held for Cline much less An Infamous crime There
no punisbmsnt IN it he il merely set 'ds because
10 nothing more thsn mere oojsction to hrs compe
teeey there waa case decided IN 10 wendsu. 4is,
wbiss goes to maintain this position Tnis
unqualified is rot tell am sense to for any
orm,nsl matter, and therefore it is m-rs mode Of
20 longer occupy the tine Of thu Court eocro.cn
upon the Arguments o. ms co Iesgne He would say,
conclus that be supposed thst this Law
constitutional any snatevsr Ju g-s say that
the state Legislature has right pass proh oitory
law uDess u undertakes 10 prooioit tue sale i'm port
90 liquors They say that wsrraot ns.d specify
that the liquors not imported He referred to the
Iuu REVISED sthtutea ne W. bsr0e9 bAr60
s6s Il is there hid that warrant ia as,or ding to
the law IL IL all that be looked int We have
stated snc even TOO much sud we're not bound
to state that taa liquor ported The decision
in 9th Howard COS the whole length Of sustaining
prohibitory law as it does ao extend to i'm ostsd
kqnors.
Dir. Thompson rext addressed the CURT On behalf Of
the p.ople He reviewed the preliminary proceedings in
the case BE supposed there we're ooy two questions
presented the consideration OF Court whether
she proceedings were according to Law, and whether the
law constitutional and valiS The counsel for the
NJ, 10
ton, which is, hat this charge Infringement of tho
Provisions OF the rst section Is ghs thing, he
legislature o. the state unconstitutional and null n
this Court male such decision IT viii throw open the
tx months for counsel nor for the Court
10 say whether they would have advised tee OF
,s law ihs simple Question Tor the Court r. snotnsr
held In the first plsce tnst sl the proceedings in this
case strict accordance WITH tins and proceed
cd 10 the regularity Of these proceedings He ctsd
authorities to show that IL necessary 10 the
rantto make distinct averms at that liquors
planned OF were not imported, also to sho~ that the
County Judge has jur,socton trial had
fore him was legal He is elected to preside at Court
Special essions ans perform such other duties as shall
Juogs B1own-you do not claim that tbs Legislature
CouDssl-No, sir Blu. claim that the Legislature
nas right to say that cer'atn offences snail be tired
Dsie,s the spees1 Sessions ~ which the coaa.
it valid Law and coss the act create osuce2 IL
offence to sell give liquor 10 offence to
to feop it aeyoaitsd. Counsel Commented upon the
opinion of the counss Of the Corporation OF New YORK
pointed the or the treaty OF tine United States
which exempted foreign liquors from the provisions OF
Judge srongThs law of the United States authorizes
| the sale Of imported brandy.
Judge strops-T only speaking Of tue decision of
right or wrong DO think that by exception In
this the psosiy e.iss whore ths quor Imported
h that those Who drew ss Act hsa
| definitely ascertaired whether there aoy Law
thu TIE 10
the t,h Howard aa~s only imported liquors to b. sold
Judge ssrons-Whs did not this act say SOP
(ouIsel IT has raid in effect, II not IN terms.
Judge Shong-The proviso, then, is at variance with
Counsel Then l refer your Honor to Blacks.ons's
remark, that when piovso 10 At vAr!ancs ~itn the
Kebts Comm entaries confirming the aams priucipls.
Prof Brown That's where tae language is aot ex-
pcit; but the difficulty is there is dabstY OF Lao
anses hsre. 1t Is 80 plain that he VINO runs can
Counsel You are to take all this act together The
9th section speaks explicitly of the sale OF mporea
liquors In the original package We are to take for
sno intelligence ef the people OF the state Csugh.er
aud they were not 10 BE- presumed to be msans fools Of
Judge Strong; understood that the section was ori
sinoy drawn to make tho act apply 10 terms to
the imported liquors Il was cra.n ~ lawyer OF
/
Council Your aonor may have been bsh ind the
would ground to the report that the ensnalss not
the f,enes OF the BILL bad its final drswiog up Tho
next Ation he would discuss was, is this valid
laws lie xoula say that the Legislature ali power
10 laws not prohibited By the State the federal
Judge strons--You do not mean to say that they
wou'u have right to prevent the gro .ipg OF iadisn
corn becsuss might be manufactured Into wAiaksyS
Counsel resumed his argument that the Legislature
nae right to pa. this - ~. would ss9nrs Soma ..
Of the law but slso go behind the sad inquire
| into the rnottves Of the legislature (LauRhser.)
Judge Strong susgested that where legislative au-
ttoIcs es.sred that certain fruits MEATS we're I'M
healthy and that their sale should b limited, they had
asht 10 do So but they had not right to prohibit
| Counsel Inquired whether, il the Common Council
yinc.d Of the fact that pineappiss we're eeese
rious to the health Of the community, they had not
Judge Browp-Msat or fruits In process Of decay are
nuisapcss but bottles Of good chsUpsgoe or brandy
vshI they may stand e. sI IN ,oa. house for
csun.sGNsisher viii rotten fruit, meats, If you
Judge s'roDs-oh, yes; they would Attest the stnao-
| sphere QAughter)
this State for many past to prohibit the Of
bsvs never before ,ss.risrsd with the use ssiieys
there Ia great difference between the regulation Of
thing and The absolute prohibition OF Tho power Of
the Legislature, believe, extends TO regulating this
matter but when they attempt the total Suppression Of
the tale of any arc which IL used for beverage
| food they outstrip their powers.
Council When you ioos at this act II does not amount
to total prohibition There to be persons licensed TO
| sell It. and men get II II they wish.
Judge stroDr-I have coubis Of that.
Council II IL only restrained and limited, but not
prob bitsd The supreme Court OF the Ueited States
| have at all events decided the question in the New
| HsDpsfire where Judge fancy said that there
restriction in the United States TO prevent States
| pyQblbtpa the Of uauOry. Ho (COunsoD did
MT why the con6scaron and destruction Of tee srt
Gle NOT auth orEe' the principle the de-
struo,ob Of ooss Tor the sake Of public security Is
| Authorzee.
Judge stropg-That question does net come up.
CouLiel-n may BE- said that part OF the punishmsnt
The obstruction Of the liquor whA dsren 70 Il there
10 pin ple that man, having been tried and convicted
u offence must submit 10 fine Of Si00, have the
property BY VIII sh the offence committed counscated
| So that oupt