Weekly hawk-eye and telegraph. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa) 1855-1857, 1855-11-21


spalysis gssfe nsds vi ths respective powers d
cassres. and the sssfs governments osss de do
ns.sste frsiKc and c0mppesce n the country. Tile
simple fart H. The powsy 10 oeyiaiH M 6rstruc.
ton 81 Intoxicating Esuor, krm Tor sale ID NJ
lssIon al law, II no higher OF didereHt power in
tsr:p~iele tIsAn that which h exercssed Ia killing
dogs thst chase aud bite sheep, yet the latter i
neqnIeAeed In. wfiIst the forIper encounters ren-
staHt opposition, - though the los u few
sheep by = bad dog, was greater evil than that
which COTS the ration millions OF dollars afs,u-
sIir ellis our yenis~nsisries with felSns, N.Y.
insns with iuna,ics, our cemeteries with premia-
ture graves, 10 ~ netting OF the tears. impor-
erishneni, diiaTadased inteilecss and impaired
moral sense. that follow In the train OF this mon
.ssrous cuYse. II IA difficult TO Account for this
singular Inconsistency, Ia conceding the power in
the one case and DENYING il in the other, unless
jts solution mas be found In the fact that the III
cioas thirst of the dog fer the blood of the
sheep, fails to quicken the minds perception 10
apprehend the want Of constitutional power, in
the one case. as does the thirst Of man for the
spirit Of alcohol in the other.
The expedieney Of tiese coerrirc measures to
snpyress the evils of intempcrnnce il an e1peri-
ment, the wisdom OF which ID doubted by many
good men, Uho believe that the evil would be
besl renedied By the impiantation Of mornl prin-
ciple in the hearts OF the people. BE this a. It
may. the question may still be mixed, whether il
II not the dictate Of reason as well as wisdom,
that the experiment having thus been entered up
on, it, capacity for good should not now be fully
and fairly tested out Of Difference 10 the opinions
Of fhe mnhf,udes who have participa,cdin initia-
ting and maturing these prohibitory neasurcs.--
!, does so appear TO the Court
The grounds, however, Upon which its advo-
Gates claim the right TO resort to coerciye meas
l.. a \ 80 YRxf.a
Of alcohol as beverage was limited in its injuri
Gus consequences to the drinkcr alone, MS over.
eating. use OF tobacco or opium, are, without sen
sible mischief to the public, then the exercise of
such power might well be questioned. But al
cohol IL quite distinct in It's constituent proper
ties and effects from all other kinds Of drinks or
personal property, and there underlies the power
to ignore or outlaw its use as an article of COM
merce, two great ideas which would seem to JUST.
~ Legislative interference. The first is question
public policy, springing out the millions worth
Of food which IL distracted from the markets of
the world and converted aud perverted from its
natural and legitimate. USE into Intoxicating
drinks The destruction OF thisvast amount Of
the pabulem of life, may well engage the atten
ton of the political economist. The second idea
is one Of administrative justice, founded upon the
but sad frniage OF the liquor traffic. 1t has
been ascertained beyond the possibility of a
doubt, that intoxicating drink taken into the
stomach, is carried Immediately by some mystic
fious affinity for the nervous tissues of tho sys-
tcm to the BRAIN the everchosen seat of its rava-
gcs, disorganiZing its functions inHuming the ir-
rascible passions, leading to violence and dis
turbancc OF the civil relations OF society," and end
ing not unfreguently in crime, pauperism, and
insanity. Against so dreful an evil, which has
i's o,:.gongs in the infinite, government should
I,1 ,ull ~ n 4 i.
Now these two great facts possess an ineSora-
bic logic, which is not answered by the cry that
alcohol is property, and the right of property is
sacred, and should be enjoyed freely without mo-
lestation from the government. So is the Bengal
Tiger property and when hemmed about with
iron bars is harmless but if let loose in crowded
district, to prey upon the lives Of individuals,
should be shot, and the owner, ifgulty of the act,
be hung. To moral suasion as remedy, which is
not to be undervalued, but supposed to be rather
slow for the times, the friends of temperance
have thought proper to superadd whatever virtue
there may be in prohibition fines and forfeitures.
Az an experiment let it be fairly tested.
But again: II was insisted in argmcnt, that
connecting the power in question, yet it has been
30 exercised by the legislature as to violate the
rights OF the people in authorizing unreasonable
seizures and searches and 10 that extent it is un.
constitutional. under the Sth section of the bill
Of rights. -
Certainly no law has ever becn passed, author
izing searches, less obnoxious to this objection
than the act in question. Under its provision
search warrant cannot issue except upon the
complaint of three persons under oath, and
not even then unless the peace officer before
whom the complaint is or may be made shall
find probable cause for such information, or is
of the opinion SHOULD it be private dwelling
to be searched) that said complansnts have ade.
quatc reasons for their belief Then, the warrant
is required to describe as specifically as practical
BILE the Intoxicating liquors to be seized, the
place or places where kept, and the person or
persons by name who are charged, leaving no
room for abuse or oppression in the use of this
process. The procedure after seizure is con-
Quoted in all its details with the most scrupu-
lons regard for the rights Of the accused and
owners OF the property, down to the ultimate
condemnation or discharge of the same. 1t is
surely unnecessary to notice at large the specific
Requirements of this law to show the groundless-
ness Of this objection, and how incomparably
better the rights of individuals are guarded under
it than they are under similar acts of Congress
passed to guard against eyasions and frauds up-
on the revenue laws of the country, ,-s 81
Lastly the invalidity of this law was insisted
upon by reason OF its submission to the people
of the State making the time of its taking effect
to turn upon their acceptance of the luw, by a
vote OF majority of the electors of this State.
1t is not concealed that the force of this OBJ
lection more than all the others is felt by the
Court, and that the same merits distinct an
swcr.
The priciple involved in this objection has been
raised, and elected no little learning in its dis.
cussion, in several of the States of the Union. In
the State of Delaware the objection was sustain
ed In the State of Pennsylvania the principle
has been ruled both ways. In Vermont the
objection was sustained. In New York the Su-
preme Court of the 18th district ruled against the
objection, and the Supreme Court Of the 9Th dis
trct and the court of appeals ruled in favor, OF
the objection And in Michigan the Supreme
Court vas equally divided, leaving it still anopc
question, with no particular preponderance of
authority either way. e5@
In this, as most of the other states ofthe Union
the law making power is vested in Senate and
House of Representatives; hence it is conceded
at the Threshold of this inquiry that the people
at large cannot legisiatc and make laws and that
every enactment should be an unqualified ex-
preston of the wisdom of the law making power
to constitute valid and authoritative act in the
meaning and sense of the constitution. But 1t
is believed and it is insisted that when this is
done the validity of the law is not impaired by
giving to It the impress and seal Of the peoples
approbauon, even although Its operation at
given time should be made contingent upon their
acceptance. $50 ,5sE #ssr III
Now the general argument upon one side Of
this question, as it may be gathered from the
decisions thus far made upon il, is, that the SUBJ
mission Of law to the people to vote their judg
ment in accepting or rejecting the same is at
war with the representative principle which lies
at the foundation Of all legislation in this coun.
try, that il shifts the responsibility from the leg
islature, the servants Of the people, 10 the poo.
pie themselves; that the law becomes the ex.
press viii and creature of the people, instead of
the two Representative bodies, to whom the
constitution has alone assigned legislative author.
ity; that the law making power thus set afioat,
aud vascillating between the people and the leg.
islatare, Woald be exercised without due dclibe-
ration or just responsibility; that the checks Of
the constitution against hasty and inconsiderate
legislation would be superseded, and that minor
tiles would be at the mercy and caprice of ire
sponsible numerical najorites, and finally, that
the executive and judicial functions of the gov
ernment could siih equal constitutional propri-
ETY. be delegated to the people, &C., &c. Sss
Now. this reasoning proceeds upon the idea
that the law has been submitted to the people in
yorsa 10 make its adoption or n; ac.ion BY them
equivalent to act of legislation, and thereby
m Ak in tha ~. I