The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1855-12-24

full opinion on this point till next term. Judge
Gookins dissents In the selling" case the
Court is divided, Judges Gookins and Stuart
holding the prohibition of selling constitu-
tional. Fnt some technical defect in the re-
cord is made available to secure enough con-
cord of opinion to reverse the case. Gookins
dissents throughout. AS two Judges, Perkins
and DAWSON, agree substantially on all the
points raised, the opinion of Judge Stuart, SO
far as it concurs with the other two, makes
the decision of the Court. The points upon
which these three agree, and hence decide, we
understand, are the following:
They hold that the prohibition of the manu-
facture Of Intoxicating liquors, is unconstitu-
tional. They hold that the creation of agen-
cies is unconstitutional. The power to search,
seize and confiscate" liquors. not being involved
in the Beebe case, is not decided, but the
Court orally stated that they would hold it
unconstitutional whenever it came properly
before them.
AS to the power to prohibit retailing by fine
and imprisonment the Court, as we have stated,
is divided. Gookins and Stuart sustaining
the law, Perkins and Davisson opposing it.
Thus, it will be seen, all restriction upon the
liquor traffic, is annihilated. The disagree
ment of the Court as to the power to prohibit
retailing" it is true, leaves an appearance of
restriction; since being undecided in the Su-
preme Court, it remains the LAW. But the
appearance is delusive. Retailing is now de-
pendent upon the will of the inferior Judges.
According as each holds that provision consti-
tutiona or otherwise, will retailing be prohibit
ed or permitted in his district. And as our in
ferior Judges are in large majority of the
counties "Old Liners" and the leaning of the
Supreme Court is SO decidedly adverse to the
whole law, there can be very little doubt that
We feel fully justified in declaring that now
Indiana has NO protection against the evils of
the liquor traffic. The law would be worth
less with the loss Of any one of the provisions
destroyed by the Court, and with the loss of
sll but one and that left at the mercy Of hos
tile Courts, it is hopeless wreck State Jour.
We presume the inference of the Journal is
correct, that retailing is now dependent upon the
will of the inferior Judges. The Supreme
Court Judges have certainly divided the re-
sponsibility. Each one has decided differently
from the other three; and three have united in
killing the law, but two of them with ar evil
dent disposition to dodge responsibility far as
possible. The whisky men have carried the
day, for if the Supreme Court has not plainly
decided the question of the constitutionality OF
this law, it has at least succeeded in so
admirably mixing up the thing that violators
of the law may not have much fear that any
Court will assume the responsibility of punish
ing them.
But do the Whisky party suppose the peo-
pie of Indiana will quietly submit to all the
evils attendant or consequent upon the retail
80 4 or,l
roads in the State? to crowded jails and poor
houses, starving widows and children, wide
spread domestic ruin and increased taxes?-
Never again will they permit these curses to
settle down upon them to be bequeatLel as a
legacy of trouble and misery to their children
There must be and there will be law of some
kind to prohibit the general retailing of liquors.
Any one who supposes this is not tn firm de-
termination of the people of Indiana, has not
studied their feelings. That there is party
opposed to any law Of the precious moral in
fluenees of good prohibitory law, is known
but that the best men of that party 1--WE do not
mean the most notorious are opposed to such
alaw, we deny. The leaders of the party, and
the scum of the party, never lose an opportu-
nifty of placing themselves in an attitude Of
antagonism to every political moral influence
but there are thousands in the party who
will stand upfor law, order and morality.
The present Law no doubt had its faults,
but it was carefully prepared, and submitted to
the best legal talent in the State before being
offered to the Representatives of the people,
that anything might be pruned out of it con-
flicting with the Constitution. 1t was the
work of the Temperance men of the State.
The bill was introduced to the Senate, the
majority in this body being Old Liners. They
passed it, and it was sent to the Republican
House. Fearing to amend it lest the Senate
should take advantage of their action to kill
the BILL the House passed it as it came to
them. In the Senate the most stringent clause
in the bill, that relating to cider, was placed
there by the casting vote OF Willard, who will
undoubtedly be the next Old Line candidate
for Governor of Indiana. The bill went to the
Old Line Governor and by his approval be-
came a lasO. The Republican party claimed
for this law fair triiI ana we emphaticaly
hacked them in this. The Old Line party
have been laboring zealously and using the