The Richmond Indiana palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1854-1855, 1855-12-06

We ask, IS not the punishment OF violation
Of law on that subject a matter properly
connected with 10 And is not the designa-
ton of the court which shall have iurisdic-
ton to try such violation, necessarily connect
ed with The subject And II the jurisdiction
clauses had been omitted, would not our op-
ponen.s then, with more plausibility. have OBJ
jected % the law Is being defective in provi-
ding punishments, without designating the
court which shall punish9 Would it no; be
very hard 10 put this law in just such form
as would please the appellant?
Who .set: ,he batter draw
With good opinion Of lhe lawe''
/ TIifdly Iii objected that this act provides
on what kind of evidence convictions may be
had in certain eases; and that evidence pro
perly belongs % tie subject Of procedure.
and not to the subject Of this act, We an
swer, some matters may properly belong TO
many subjects, and to one Just naturally as
10 another Tie evidence on which a man
may be convicted under statute creating an
o.Fcuce is necessarily a matter connected with
the subject Of such statute. Our laws have
always SO regarded it. Our statute against
rape provides the kind of evidence which
shall make ont the charge r s, 401.--
Our law a-siust seduction and abduction de
signaes the evidence necessary to corvic.
= L.
ing stolen goods provides for tie evidence in
such case R. : 43G. Our law against
keeping gaming houses provides the same
thing. 9 r. s. 1876. We have like pro,is
ion As to criminal frauds Of all kinds. R
S, I36. Are our two acts concerning felo-
nies and misaemeanors unconstitutional be
cause they thus contain provisions touching
evidence? Will our opponents say that any
part of them Is void forihat cause? But does
not their objection apply with much force
10 those acts as to the one under considera-
tom
More fully to enforce and illustrate the fore
going views of the constitutional provision
touching the titles to statutes, we respectfully
submit also tie follwing observations:
The clause Of the constitution in question.
requires that all the provisions of statute
shall be capable Of classification under two
heads, namely: l. Those which are properly
comprehended within the subject of :. statute;
Q Those which are properly connected there
with. The first, Of course. includes he whole
ground work Of the statute, As Tie very ETY.
mology OF the word sulisct indicates Tae
second may embrace many provisions which
are dissimiar and disconnected from each
other and which, as beitcesn ttem Selres, do
not form any distinct subject, but which. con
sidered with reference to the whole act, are
intimately connected with the subject of the
act and indispensable to give il efficiency as
a remedial statute.
For example. The subject Of the statute is
The suppression Of intemperance arising from
the use of intoxicating liquors. Tie mode of
accom- plisling this resul. IS by prob biting
the manufacture and sale of such liquors; but
the mere enactment of prohibition will be
Intellectual without annexing a penalty. The
= l. {
statute must therefore, specify the Courts
which shall have Jurisdiction 20 enforce it
These provisions involve the actions of eli
zens and Of ministerial and judicial officers
commencing with Tie steps preparatory TO
to trial and conviction, and pursuing them to
the complete execution Of The jud gment-
The statute should specify the acts which fs,l
within the penalty--how the Court shall ac
Quire jurisdiction of the oiience the process
u be issued d-whethera warrant or summons;
the officer 10 whom it i TO be issued; the
time and manner of executing IT,; the time Of
returning it, and the substance of the return;
the time mode and place Of trial; the nature
of the punish ,nenT. Whether fine or imprison-
tnent. or both The statute shoud also pro
vide Tor appeal, IN order that fair trial NAV
b insured; and ,he proceedings in the appel
Is,e Court should be completely provided tor,
These are parts of the ground work Of the
tain e. and If either OF them were omitted
he proiiibi ian TO n.anuac ure aud sell the
prescribed a@ic3e woul,! ht Intellectual.
Bus this i only half Of the subject" No
importance law has tempted 10 prohib-
it tie manufacture and sale Of intoxica ing Il
luor under AL circumstances. The u.iii'y Of
ts.ch Gquo- a a medicine and in the ne
ctanc arts las always been recognized; and
ihe effort has only been 70 suppress the use
Of il as a beverage. Hence. no temperance
law has eser attempted to prohibit The manu-
facture or sale of suca liquor. without palic-
ulary providing for The manufacture or sale
or ba>h, by some persons Or agents acting IN
der the authority Of law. Tie law should
therefore, provide the authority or tribunal
which should apPoia, or license such agents;
the qualifications and number Of The latter; the
extent Of their powers and duties; the bond
and surety req aired Of them: the penalties 20
which they are subject; The enforcement Of
such penalties, and in what courts these sh4il
be enforced the duties of courts and mnise.
rial officers, and the execution OF judgments
connected Herewith All these provisions are
necessary to give to the appointment or licea-
sing of agents the intended effect.
Ii NAV be asked why should these two
branches be embraced under one subiect7-
The answer which has already been auticipa-
ted IS that no temperance law ever provided
for the total prohibition of the manufacture
or sale of intoxicating liquor. The intent Of
the law is simply to suppress intempe-ance
The means adopted are, the prohibition Of the
manufacture, or sale, or both, BY the public
generally. and the appointment or licensing Of
agents to manufacture or sell, or both, within
such limitations as may be prescribed BY law.
These two provisions never have been separa
ted in the Legislation Of any State, aud thew
never can be separated. The one is the gen
eral rule; the other, the exception The latter