The Richmond Indiana palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1854-1855, 1855-12-13

ways been customary. when arres,ing the
offender. 10 seize and take from him the instru-
meuts by which he was committing the Of
fence.
Objections are also made 70 the s1st section
of the act. that il compels those who claim al
interest ia the liquor seized. TO assert their
claim upon the trial. and forhids them to con-
test the validity OF the Judgment in a cola
teral proceeding, or otherwise. exeept, by a
defence or appeal of the action in which the
forfeiture is declared. We confess that we
cannot see the force OF this objection. Hero
is proceeding in rem, that is. againsf Tie
thing to destroy II as = nuisance. The pFin
clp.e Is we'll established, that In proceeding
ill reDl 10 aose q nuisance. the action Of re-
plevin will not be allowed, to take the fii,sy
charged and seized . nuisance out of the
custody oil the law, until the proceedings
have terminated. Such course would de-
feat the proceeding, and nuilify the law
Neither can the validity of proceeding or
Judgment IN rem, be contested in any other
action than the proceeding in which the for
feiture is declared. Slocum v. Mayberry e al,
2 Wheat /, "a Cond. r. 1 J; Gelston ct. al. V.
Hoyt, Wheat. e46. "a Cond. r. e44)
We have several instances where those vino
claim aain:erest in properly which is taken
into custody are restricted to particular rem
edies When land IS taken for right of way
by Railroad, Plankroad. or Canal CompanY,
the owner of the land is restricted 10 tie
remedy provided by statute. So in the ease
o! attachment of property in which some
other person than the defendant claims al in.
terest- 2 K. s. 1889. p 81, sec. 1e9 And
in the case of property taken in execution il
person not a party to the proceeding claims
an interest therein, he must adopt the remedy
provided by the statute. r. S. 1852, p. 493.
1t has been objected that the statute pro-
vides not only for seizing and confscating the
prescribed liquor, but also requires that Tho
unoffending vessels in which it is contained
shall be seized and forfeited. This objection
may be answered by the authorities already
referred to. in which, as we have seen. the
unoffending ships designed as slave ships,
together with their unotfending "tackle, furni.
ture, apparel, and other appurtenances." were
forfeited to the United States. See U. S.
Statutes at Large, $40. And we have seen
that like forfeiture of unohending properly
was provided for in relation to the suppression
Of intemperance among the Indians; in w hch
case. the act of Congress prescribed ..tha.if
any person whatever shall. within the limits
OF the Indian country, set up or continue any
distillery for manufacturing ardent spir,s, he
shall forfeit and pay penalty of 900 dollars;
and it shall be the duty of the Superintendent
break up the same 4 United States a. Large
733. What pity to destroy the unoffendng
distiiery! Yet the net Of Congress was held
constitutional. The same reason applies 70 all
these cases. The vessels containing the liquor,
the shrps and their appurtenances aud lhc
distlleries. intended for unlaw full purposes;
and they are therefore lawfully forfeited.
We have thus as We conceive, sufficiently
shown that. whether. considered in reference
i'll. Il
legislative power, our statute for the suppress-
ion Of intemperance is valid. Ia doing SO,
We have examined all the objections which.
50 far as we have been able to learn, have
been made to II by opposing counsel We
have not, indeed. had the opportunity Of read
ing their briefs before preparing this argument.
In those briefs. they may have started objec-
tons which are not here noticed, and cited
authorities to which we have here no oppor-
tunlty OF replying But we regard this as a
matter Of little consequence. For we are per-
suaded that no valid objection can BE- brought
against this law. Indeed, we are satisfied
that much of what we have done in this ar
gument is work of supererogation; partly,
because many of the positions assumed by US
are plain enough without any argument, and
partly, because we are confident thatthe Judges
viii not consider themselves called on in this
case to do more than determine whether so
much of the statute as prohibits the manufac-
ture and sale of intoxicating liquors. is valid
Really. to ask them to do more is to ask
most extraordinary thing. To demand de-
cison on the numerous provisions of this act,
is, under the circumstances Of this case a
bold demand. A like demand, under ike
circumstances, we believe, was never before
made upon this Court Such demand by
avoluntary martyr, surely is. to say the least.
not a very modest ona 8s
But should the Court take q different view,
and regard the demand as reasonable, we fear
not the consequences For we verify believe
that this law is not only valid, but that i. is
holy, just, and good And even If the
Court should doubt the utility of the stature.
We are sure the Judges canno. doubt It's vail
dity; and that they viii adhere to the rule pro-
pounded BY his honor Judge STUART, in Rep
ley V. The State. Ind r., 265. in which he
declares that, Whether the law is polite, or
expedient, or necessary, is not question with
which the Courts have any thing to do. That
lies between the People and those to whom
they delegate the temporary power Of making
laws. Ii the act is not reflection of public
sentiment, neither the responsibility nor the
remedy lies with the Courts"
DAVID MCDONALD. 1a
BARBOUR d. PORTER. H.so'..sy'
NEWCOMB s HARVEY, f ~ |s
n. B. TAYLOR. HfP'''9'
Perkins is immortal, and bis work. ere
wonderful He is going TO preach again ''for