The Richmond Indiana palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1854-1855, 1855-11-29
APPELLEE's BGrEY.

indianapolis on two distinct charges: the one
for unlawfully making, the other for unlaw-
fully selling, Intoxicating liquor. In both
cases he was found guilty; and IN each he
was fined fl.v dollars. Refusing either to
paw or stav these fnes. he was committed to
the Jail Of Marion County. To test the va
Iidity Of the law under which he prose
cu.ed. he obtained against the Sheriff, from
the Marion Common Pleas, writs Of haJeas
corpus TO these writs the Sheriff returned
tie matters above stated. and thai he held
Beebe in custody bv virtue of the writs of
commitment which had been issued on the
judgments rendered in said pro.ecu'ions. On
the making of these returns, Bccbe moved,
without any pleading thereto, for a discharge
from custody. The motion WAS orerrulei:
and he answering no further, was remandel
10 prison From the decision overriuIng said
motion, be appealed to the Supreme Court.
We learn that no objection is taken to the
form and regularity OF these proceedings.
The only ground taken for the appellant is
that the statute on which the prosecutions were
founded, is invalid.
Before proceeding 10 inquire into tie val
iditv Of that statute, would observe:
First, That this investigation does not in
volve any question concerning tie expedien-
cv Of the law, but only question of legislative
power.
Second, That if either the conviction for
unlawfully manufacturing, or for unlaw!ully
selling, be vail the Judgment below must
be affirmed for the returns to The writs Of ha
Jeas corpus, seyerally, show that the appel
ant was in custody on both the convictions;
and any good cause Of detention justilies the
Imprisonment.
Third. That though we belve the act Of
the Legislature in question is clearly valtd
vet it is not necessary that it should appear
to the Court; for unless it can be shown on
the other side that the act is ciearlg anculR,
it must be sustained A proprr respect for
the Legislative DEPARTMENT Of the government
requires the adoption Of this rule. The
presumption must always be 10 favor OF the
validity of the laws. ii the contrary is no:
clearly demonstrated" Cooper V. Ielfair
) Dat IS. ''In questions OF this kind it is
our duty to decide in favor OF the validity Of
the statue, unless is unconsIiu.ionality is so
obvious as to admit Of no doubt" The State
V. Cooper, 5 Blackf. 259.
Let Us now proceed to inquire whether the
appellant is right in his position tl.at the act
OF February 1855, ''ior the suppression OF in
temperance - under which he WAS convicted
1 IS Of no validity.
I This act is clearly not in violation of the
Federal Constitution. So as we understand
them, our opponents themselves admit. l.
must. then, be valid, unless some implied lin
itation on legislative power forbids Is pas
sage, or unless it violates the Constitution Of
Indiana We are, therefore, naturally led 10
inquire, ist, whether any implied limitation
oil legislative authority lorbids the passage of
such law? and 81, whether the law Is con
trary to our Constitution?
.isiar from az constitutional prohibitions.
T.,rii., Fys; }s1.,
upon the Legislative poccr rdiet renders iae iatr
IN question iaopefatiee aud raid
In England, it is maxim that Parliament
is omnipo,ent. The maxim cannot be applied
to any law making power in the United States;
because here all legislation is under constitu-
tonal limitations Bat were it not for these
constitutional limitations, there would be just
as much reason ia holding that the maxim is
true with reference To the General Assembly
of Indiana, as to the British Parliament. We
DO not SAY tha; it is strictly true OF either
But We do say that, except so faraS our legis-
lature is cou>ltutional!y limited. II possesses
as ample legislative powers As any legislature
in the world egi,imatelv possesses. Our con
stitution provides that The legislative au hor-
ity OF the Safe shall be vested 10 the General
Assembly" This is sovereign State Ex-
cept so far as the Federal Constitution limits
il. it has as much legitimate legislative power
as any State in the world. Whatever "lrsis-
lative authority" il does possess is all vested
in the General Assembly" The constitution
makes a general grant of the law making
power 10 that body. and thereby makes it
sovereign body; fer Sovereignty and lcgj>i.-
ture are. indeed. convertible terms"
Backst Com 46 II follows therefore that
our General Assembly having tie complete
investure of the law making power. and being
sovereign under constitutional iim'a ions a
are prescribed. it may. within the bounds of
those limitations ,legIsate on any subject which
is proper object of legislation, according to
the order and nature of things, and lie con
sututon OF man.
It's then. proper here 10 inquire, what are
the proper objects Of le-islation9 The De
claration OF Independence. and our State
Constitution give the answer TO this question,
and tell Us that the proper object o5 legislation
is the security TO the people of lie. liberty.
and the pursuit of happiness. And this Is, IN
deed, no more than tha. maxim OF general
law. sdIus populi suprtma ier.
The writers on the law OF nature and pub
lie law also furnish us the test of the proper
objects Of legislation. That test as follows:
l.. The thin-, ordained must be posSible;
I 2. The law must be of some ullity;" ;.
The law must be in itself Just; that Is. COM
tormable TO order aud I'ua;ure OF things well
as TO the constitution OF man ] Rurlanaa
quis Principles of Natural and Political
Law. ch. IL. sec. 9. We need not cite other
authors We believe ;ha. al y Iri,ers on Nat
ural and Political Law ssree on this point
Tested, then, By these rules. lei Us see if the
statute under consideration IS valid.
First, Is the thing ordained possible? No
body doubts this. |. therefore needs no arr1l
ment
Second. Nav this statute be reasonably
supposed to .be of some utilitys" The answer
10 this seems TO US equally clear. A law may
be of utility in many respects. L may be
~ Ef, h.airl