Weekly Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1853-1861, 1855-11-15


overbalances the evil of occasional individual
excess "Order" must not be made to reign"
here as once Eat Warsaw by the annihila
ton of all freedom of action, crushing out, III
deed, the spirit itself of liberty. With US, in
the language OF the then illnstriOus Burke. when
defending the revolving American Colonies,
something must be pardoned to the spirit OF
liberty.
What regulations of the liquor business
would be constitutional. 1t IS not for us olndi-
cate in advance; but those which the Legislature
may from time to time prescribe can be brought
by the citizen to the constitutional test before
the judiciary, and it will devolve upon that de-
partinent to decide upon their consistency with
the organic law; ia fact, the questioned power,
of usurpation between the people and the
peoples representatives; and in doing this, SO
far as itmay devolye upon us, we shall eheer-
fully throw every doubtin favor OF the latter,
and of stringent regulations Such Is the con COZ
stitution Of our government. Maze " The
State, Ind 342-Thomas v. The Board OF
Commissioners OF Clay County, Ind, 35I,-
Greencastle Township v. Black, Ind, 55I.-
Larmer v. The Trustees Of Albion, 5Hill, l2l.-
Durham v The Trustees of Rochester D Cow
en-, 462 Golfer v, Doty, 5 Ohio Rep, 1893,
1t is like the case of laws for the collection OF
debts The constitution prohibits the passage
of an act impairng the obligation of contract;
yet the Legislature may regulate the remedy up
| on contracts. but must regulate within such
limits as not substantially to impair the RENE
! dy, as that would indirectly impair the obliga-
ton of the contract itself. Gantly's Lessee v.
| Ewing, How, u. $ Rep. 7O1.
Regulations within constitutional limits, We
have no doubt, if efficiently enforced, will nc,
complish. rs we have said, nearly all that can
reasonably be desired.
The legislature, we will add, may undoubt-
4 IL. r .Iu.
portions of liquor shall be kept for use in vi
olation of proper regulations, as in the case Of
gun powder stored in popuous city. and this
forfeiture will be adjudged by the Judiciary; see
Cotter .. Doty Supra; but neither all the gun
powder nor liquor in the State, accompanied by
the prohibition of the further manufacture and
use OF the article, can be forfeited ON account
of tie improper use Of a given quantity, because
the ent6ety of neither of the articles is a nui.
sance. Its not pretended TO be so as to gun
powder, and We think we have shown it is moi
: so as to liquor.
} So, it is doubtless competent for the legisla
turc 10 establish proper police regulations t.
prevent the introducing of foreign paupers, dc.
! for there is palpable difference between exclu
! ding foreign, and expelling a citizen, pau
! per. The constitutional convention thought ]
} might have power to prohibit the ingress o
J foreign, while il might not TO compel the egres
of resident, negroes.
SO, by such regulations, may the introduc
ton of nuisances be prevented; for there Is
e wide difference between assuming TO declar
that 4 given thing is nuisance, and the prohi
5 biting OF the introduction of what is conceded
: or shall turn out 10 be, a nuisance. 49, 49,,
{ And, IN fact, the restrictions in the constitu
t ton upon the Legislative power may operate 70
q the benefit of those living under. and in som
sense party 10, its provisions, and not for tina
>, of strangers. 1t will not be denied that but fo
e. the constitution and laws of the United State
S which impose the restriction, the State, as a
d independent sovereignty, might exclude froI
e her borders all foreign liquors, whether nuisar
y ces or not, unless, indeed, the doctrine upo
e which Great Britain was defended in forcin
o trade with Chn1at the canon's mouth be col
:. rect, that in this day Of Christian civilization
l. it Is the duty of all nations 10 admit univers;
reciprocal trade and commerce, doctrine, ns
} yet, We think Incorporated into the code Of il
lie tcrnational law 5lsia
l. And it would not follow that, because the Stai
might prohibit the introduction Of foreig
e. wheat she could, therefore, prohibit the cultivi
Of ton Of it within the State by her own citizens
5 The right of the State TO prevent the introdu
;" ton of foreign objects does not depend upon I'll
n fact Of their being nuisauees, offensive othe
: wise; but she does it, when not restrained
Ia the constitution or laws of the United States,
ID the exercise of her sovereign viii. ~ 20
lie This, however, is topic involving question
10 of power between the State and Federal Go
III ernlnents which we do not intend discussing
&c the present opinion. We limit ourselves he
Is to the Question of the power of the legislatu
over the property and pursuits of the citizs
n under the Stale Constitution. The restriction
as which We have examined upon the legislati'
r. power of the State We're inserted in the const
ly tuition to protect the minority from the oppre
II. sion OF the majority and all from the usurp
er ton Of helegislature, the members of whic
n under our plurality system of elections, ms
~ be returned by a minority OF the people. Tn.
Sc should. therefore. he faithfully maintained.
,yd they are the main safeguards TO the persol
&c and property of the State.
CO 1t - easy TO see that when the people a
ly smarling under losses from deprecated bar
as paper, feeling might be aroused that woul
I'M under our plurality system, return majority
ne the Legislature, which would declare all banl
or a nuisance, confscate their paper and Il
nd buildings from which it issues.
So with Railroads, wheu repeated wholesa
of murders are perpetrated by some of them. An
re in Great Britain and France, We have exampl
nd of the confiscation of the property of Il
n churches even; which, here, the same constit
p tion that protects the dealer in beer. wou
ds render safe from invasion by the legislati
H. power.
In our opinion for the reasons given aboy
,rt the liquor act of 1855 is void. Let the prison
I'll be discharged