Marshall County Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1855-1859, 1855-11-15

occasiOna. individual excess. ..Ordrr,
must not be made 10 reign here rs uus G
at Warsaw by the ann,hiia,ion of all
freedom OF action. crushing "ut, indeed,
the spirit itself # liberty. With us. in
The language of The th-u illms,tious Bnrse
"h~n defending The revolving Am-,icau
CI"nips. something mus, br pardonrd 1,
the spirit "f Liberty.
What regulations OF he liquor bushes.
would br constitutional il i, not for u.
TO indicate IN advance; but those which
The legislature may from time TO time
prescribe can be brought by the citizen 1,
tie constitutional test before he jud:cla
nv. and il will devol,e upon tia, denar,
m"nt 10 decide upon their consistent,
with the organic law: in fact. the ques
ton OF power. "i usurpaiion. brtw--i
the people and the pr"plr's reprps~nto
tvs; and in doing This so far as il ina,
drvolve upon us. VIZ shall ch-rifulI,
and of s:ripgen, regulations Such is tn.
constitution of O"r government MAJ V
TIE State. 4 Ind. 342 Thomas v. tn.
Board OF Commissioners Of Clay County
Ind. 557 Gr--ncaslle Township
Black. Ind. 557 Ltrmer v. The Tru>
tees Of Albion. 5 Hill 1911 Durham v
The Trustees of R 'chrs:-r s Cowen. 462
Golfer v. Doty. ) Ohio Rep. 1893.
Ii is like the case Of laws for III. co!
lection of depts. The constitution pro
hibits the passage Of nm act impairiug III,
obligation of a contact; yet the I-gisla
tuie may regulate the remedy upon con
tracts. but must regulate within such Ii
m',s as no, substantially TO impair tn,
remedy. MS that would indirectly impai
The obligation Of The contrat itself -
Gantly's L-Ss-e v. Ewing. How. L
S R"p.. TOT.
Regulations within constitutional Ii
miis. wa have no doubt. il efficiently rn
| forced. will accomplish. as we have sail
nearly all that can reasonably be drs!re.i
the legislature. We will add. NAV IN
doub,ediy require IN. forfeiture Of such
particular portions Of liquor as shall! b,
kept for use in violation "i proper rrgu
la,ions, Ms in the case Of gun powdrl
stored in a populous ciy. and this for
FIXTURE Will be ndju'ig-d by the juniciar.
ser Co,teru D,ty Supra; bu, neither a.
the gun powder nor liquor in The State
accompanied by ,hr prohibition Of III,
further manufacture aus! use NJ the arti
Gle. Can BE- forfeited on uccouni Of III,
improper use OF n given qn,nii'y. be
cause the entirety of neither Of the srii
cies is a nuisance. Ii is hol pretended Il
br So as To gun powurr. and we think We
nave shown II il not so as 10 liquor.
S. il is doubtless COMPETENT for ii,
leg stature IN establish proper police re
guiniiOuS to prevent the iniroduring o
foreign paup rs &c . frr ihrr' is papa
bic difference between excluding =, for
~'gn. and exprll:ng ciliz:n pauprr -
Tn" constitutional c"nv-nti"n thought ii
might have power I" pr 'hiot the ingre>.
"f foreign. while ii nigh, no, In comp-
he "gr-ss at SID. NJ. neSro-s.
So by su''h regulation mny The intro
furtion ~ n"i>anccs be- prevented fo
there is idr diiFriencr between assu,u
ing t" d. clare that givrn Thing ia Il nuI
S,nce. and the prob. biting OF the intrn
duc,ion ni what is conceded, or shall turi
out TO be nuisancr.
And. in TACT. the restrictions in IN,
constitution upon the legislative power
may operate for the brnefit of those liz
ing under. and in some sens party to
its provisions. and no, for ihal' rang
-rs II will not br denied that hui Ia,
The constitution and laws of the Unitrd
States which impose the restriction IA,
Safe. as an independent sovcrrignt,
might exclude from her b., ders nil far
eign liquors whe nuissnces or NOT
unless. INDEED. the cOciIin- upon viii. !,
Great Britain was defended ia forciu.
trade With China at the c,n,n's mouth br
correct. that in this day of Christian civ
ilIxrt,on. it is the duty of all nations tn
TO admit universal reciprocal trade nnd
commerce, q doctrine not vet we think
incorporated into The code IF International
law.
Aud ii would not follow tha., because
the State might prohibit The introduction
Of foreign wheat she could. therefore.
prnhibit :he cultivation of il within ia.
State by her own citizens. The right Of
the State 10 prevent the Introduction of
foreign objects does no, depend upon the
fact 0! their being nuissnces or offensive
otherwise; but she dnes II. when not res
trimmed by the constitution or laws of ,hr
United States. in the exercise uf her SOW .
ereign will.
This. however. is a topic involving
questions Of power b~tw-en the State ann
Federal Governments which we do No.,
intend discussing in the present opinion
We limit ourselves here to the uupsri n
Of the power "f the legislature over the
property and pursuits Of the rit,zrn under
the State constitution The restrit lions
which We have examined upon the legs.
ls,ive power nf he State were inserted
IN the constitution To protect the minor
ity from the oppression Of the m ,joritv.
and all from the usurp,tion al the legis.
In pure. the members of which under our
plurality system Of elections. NAV he r.
turned ny minority of th- people The,
should therefore. b. faithfully maintain.
ed. They are the main safe guards 10 The
persons and property of the STATE.