Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1849-1856, 1855-01-04
Opinion Of the Supreme Court.
OF TIE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE LIQUOR LAW.

versus James Snow, involving the con-
siitalionality Of the Liquor Law;
! In the argument in this case, the objec-
tons Of the defendants counsel to the con-
stitutionality Of the act before us, arc pain-
| ly directed to lhe yalility Of the ninth sec
ton of the act commonly termed the seiz-
ure clause Of the act, which provides for The
forfeiture and destruction OF the liquors un-
lawfully kept for sale against the provisions
of the first and fourth sections of the act
The first objection raised by the defend
ants counsel is, that the act is in conflict
with sec. 18th, art. st, of the constitution,
which is " private property shall not be ta-
ken for public uses without just compen-
sation." This objection supposes that the
property 10 be adjudged forfeited is i'll the
sense of that cton taken for public use
1t s,howevcr, in no sense taken for the use
of the public. 1t is simply adjudged forfeit
for the violation of the la :, and to this ex-
tent is in the nature of 4 penalty inflicted
upon The owner. This provision of the con-
stitulion was never supposed to apply to
! forfeiture and coniiscaiion.
The second objection is against the
| fourteenth section Of the uct which is claim
! ed to be in conflict with the sixth section
of article first of the constitution. The
provision contained in the fourteenth Sec
ton Of the act objected to is this Nor
| shall it be necessary to particularly de-
scribe the packages or kinds of liquors TO be
searched lor." And the provision Of the
sixth section of article first of the consttu-
lion is, that ''no search warrant shall issue
but upon complaint in writing upon proba-
bic cause, supported by oath or affirmation,
and describing, as near y as may be, the
place to b. searched and the persons Or
things to be seized
Does this provision of section fourteen
authorize warrant to issue without de-
s.ribing the place TO be searched and The
things TO be seized, as nearly as may be Z?
The provision in section ninth is, that the
same requisites shall be observed before is
suing search warrant under this act as
are required before the issuing of search
warrant. in other cases, Those requisites
are. such as are required by the constitution.
The constitutional provision supposes
that it would not be possible particularly to
describe in all cases, and therefore it con-
tents itself with providing for description
as ear as may be-. e., as near as the
circumstances will admit, according to the
nature of the property or thing.
We do not think the act IN this respect
is necessary or clearly in conflict with the
constitutional provision. 1t is still requisite
that the description should be as nearly as
may be, and yet not necessarily particular
and precise, but varying according TO the
nature of the thing to be described.
The third objection is that section four
tcenth OF the act providing as follows -
And any defect in such complaint and
warrant, Indictment or other proceeding, Ell
II thcr OF form or substance, may be amended
\ either by the Justice, or court exercising
the jurisdiction of Justice or other court
before whom the action, complaint or in
dctment or other proceeding is originally
brought" conflicts, with section tenth OF ar
icle one of the constitution, which pro-
vdes that the acc used shall enjoy the right
"to be informed of the nature and cause of
the &C cusaton."
Ii is perhaps not necessary TO consider
whether an amendment under this section
would deprive the accused of his right to
be informed of the nature of the accusation
of the cause. An amended accusation is
nevertheless the same accusation, and
and when it ceases to be So tn, alterat ion
proposed ceases to be an amendment But
a fuller and more conclusive answer to the
objection is that the process is provided for
in other portions of the act, and if this sec
ton fourteenth were omitted altogether, the
residue of the act nigh be carried into cf-
l feet.
One portion of an act might be declared
! unconstitutional and the residue constitu-
! tional. The act is void so far only as IT
! conflicts with the constitutional provisions,
and no further. Ii to amend in the manner
| proyided in this section SO conflicts, il
would only be necessary TO say that such
\ amendments cannot be- made, and the pro-
cecdingS as they are, must be tried by the
law, as fno such provision for amendments
had been made. The question of constitu.
tionalty, as to that provision, could never
arise until some amendment is proposed to
be made, and as a reason why it should not
b. made.
The defendants counsel contends that
the provisions Of the ninth section are IN
conflict with the tenth section Of article frs
of the constitution, which is that "in all
criminal prosecutions The accused shall be
: informed of the nature and cause OF the
accusation agains, him. &c. "Nor shall
he be deprived of life, liberty or property,
unless by the judgment Cf lis peers or the
\ law OF tho land" And he claims That i is