New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-07-18

if tie Court now declared the law unc01s ituli0Ds',
the fooeestes must be oPered vide, producing dsls-
tous resus. Knowing this he satisfied the
Couit would look and lsies patiently II was not ior
the counsel or the Court ~ Say whe'rtr they wouI
adviss such law: The question wss-pid tins Ia"
infringe NJ on the Constitution All the proceedings
were strictly conformable to tcs law Counsel heFe
read extracts from the act. By ssction i ras pro-
vided that the trial should be befefe Judge IN spe
oial Sessions, whether Judge Of County Court or
! not
In Goulds pleading, page 179, %, the di.iac:
tioIs between exception and proyI7 were pointed
out. In tie 18th sec. was said where the exception
in tie enac;ng clause where IN the sxse Law per
Sons were prohibited from selling, "nCt having Il
ceDse then it must be stated in the compliant that
be has not license But provisos were only matters
Of defer Sc On this point there were several cases
there cited In page 29l of BarbOurs Criminal Treat
lie this point was further calculated and was ex-
pressy there laid down and the referred t. was IN
Term Reports p 52o that where the pro.ise wa 10
subsequent clause, though In the same secon lwhicn
was this case il need moi be stated IN the compliant
The first part Of the Isl section Of this law first prohio
tied the sale keeping for sale secondly giving OF
keeping TO give. Then in another sentence followed
the clause that the section should not apply 70 any
liquor authorized by any law or treaty OF the United
States to be sold making It u technical Proy1So.
| Thirdly The Judge had jurisdiction OF the trial IN
Special Sessions The article in the Constitution as TO
local Courts did lot apply relating TO cities only. Here
the County Judge was elected to preside the County
Court and Court OF Sessions and 10 do such other du
tee as may be required by law.
BY this law be detailed TO do this duty, and it
yas only transferring the jurisdiction In Special Ses
sions TO him from the Justices o. the Peace.
Judge Brown-You don't claim that the Legislature
has tie right TO absh criminal Courts out Of
citiosl
Mr.. Tlompson-I say this rs not new local Court,
but Court of Special Sessions to which the Judge is
detailed Did this act create any ofensel II did,
firstly to sell keep for selling secondly, to give or
keep for giving and thirdly TO dePoeh except IN Ger,
tain places He believed that the gentleman who had
the honor of discovering that the prOviso In the lst
section nullfed the whole the Corporation Attor-
ney Of New-Yoik. But he could not have read the
act lie Mr.. 1homI sou would Ike TO see the law or
treaty of the United States which excepted imported
lGuors He could never find such law and he had
the authority of Mr.. Marcy for saying that there was
O treaty relating to wine in 1892 and which expired
in 1912, since when there was no law Of the United
States which allowed liquor to be sold.
Judge Strong-Il is allowed TO be imported.
Mr. Tbompson-If the proyiso interpreted as il Is
attempted to be, il would nuly the law altogether.
Judge Strong-1hat may well be.
Mr. Thompson-I may here refer to a rule Of con-
strucon laid down in Blaeksones Common
taros page &c. where words are themselves doubtful
or repugnant to the whole law they void
Judge Brown-We shall have to ascertain what
they by what they've said
Mr. ThoInIson-And in Kent's Commentaries il is
said that the intention must be taken from view OF
the law altogether when the words admit OF an am
biguOus or dubious meaning
Judge Stronghold the other side say they do not
admit of dubious meaning. They are not doubtful
Of all but as explicit as they can be made
Mr. Thsmpson-But we are not to say that the
LEGISLATURE are set of dos and fools but rather that
they comprise the supreme wisdom OF the State sup
pose pipe of brandy came into Newly ork and got
little of il in Poughkeepsie, and your Honor little
Long Island and Mr. Bierberlcke got little in his
shop. If this proyiso is to extend to- Gil 1t would
produce ntermin6ble confusion.
Judge Strong nave heard that the history of that
provision was that it introduced by member Of
The Bar an eminent one and an eminent friend OF the
TEMPERANCE cause, and in words that would have
been efecual but that those words were struck out
and those introduced by member who was not any
greet friend TO the cause.
MI Tbompson-Your honor may have been moro
behind the scenes than was; and if that you
say, il may explain some observations outside, and
that not the friends but enemies of the law
had the final fixing of it, 1t is valid law. Article 3,
Section of the Constitution gives TO the Legislature
the supreme power except where excepted by the Con-
stiiutioD, to declare what is a nuisance.
Judge Srong-Have they the right to say corn is
nuisance because whisky may be made OF H. anu 10
say 10 one shall grow any morei
MIR. 1hOmI soD--Ihey have the night to legisate as
to police anG saritory measures ana they nave nc
coidiugly said that certain productions from the Vest
Indies shall not be imported in certain seasons Tor
instance, ineepples
After come further Illustrations of this argument
Judge Strong said: You do not Distinguish between
permitting prohibiting altogether 1t would not
lie the province Of q JUDICIARY to pronounce upon 1t
where there is color for H. and 1t Is matter OF dis
! cret;on. Bed meats and fruits which become puird
may be nuisaucos, but bottle OF champagne or
| brandy won't hunt you If you et II alone.
! Mr. Thomson continued TO argue there was some
reason il his aw but hayiuggot out the idea lac would
not longihen his argument OF that part OF the case.
He contonded another ground that was not total
Prohibition. There were still persons who had the
tight TO sell for medicinal purposes. The night was
transferred from the tavcrnkeeQers to them only some
wi at more limited and inside the old excise laws. In
! Judge Edmords' opinion he had alluded 70 the New
/ Hamtslre act, which was total prohbition-there
was no limit at all-and which had been sustained.
Here was res 04juGicQfd. lie then alluded TO the
search ard seizure clause, but the Court said that
fiat question was not presenied here at all Counsel
nroc.eded that II might be seii the forfeiture If the
| goods was part of the punishment, but that would
! not make any difference as il might be nposet as
renalty az legally as pccuniGry hne Passing TO the
irolibitorS feature of the law be cOnented that the
I Legislature could regulate and prohibit.
JUDGE Brown said the question 10 deal with was
| certain elementary principles OF law. The night to
hold property and enjoy was the essence OF hbery
] 10 control H. and the law which denied man place
TO put or keep IN, the night to dispose Of IT,
| the question OF coLsiiiu0naity. lie expressed 10
oliniop. but that the question TO be considered
/ Mr.. Thompson argued that tie Legislature had
right 10 declare that certain property was 10 property
al all and that they could give power 10 destroy II If
/ they thought in their wisdom II was for tie public
/ benefit. Ii be had a dog worth 500 aud took hi
ont In certain seasons Of. the year without nuzzle,
he was liable to be shot and he did not see way
LIQUORS should not be in the same category with rabd
/ dogs.
Judge Strong ssked if the learned gentleman had
ever Heard Of the law for the destruction OF dog with
ont muzzles having ever been carried into etiee. IN
| private dwellings.
Mr.. Thompson then proceeded to the consideration
| of the act, and argued, that II as some lawyers
asserted the Prohibory sections OF The Oh act were
not reuoaled thew not inconsistent win the pro-
xi.iors OF the ACT under d scussion-and that ii
the search and seizure clause were declared uncon-
sutonal. the other parts Of the law would SUI re-
main in fu force ar i was recently decided IN Mas
sechuseifs in similar 10 the present, and under
NJ