The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-07-14
THE LANDoS LIQUOR CASE.
fkrDu, tnN Albany xtlss T.ix ~ 1

from the Aichpy Atlas, July ~
lie court having convened, IL vAs announced that
Mr.. Werner, tbs COUNSEL for the prose did not
propose 10 press his application for leave file a
complaint against the dsfencan Just 1e Ctle vas pro
cseoipg TO arrsgn the defendant, when Mr. Porter ap
prited him that Mr. Landon cid consent 10 tired
BY Court Of Special Sessions bat ela,ncd tho riyh,
give bah fcr his appearance at the Court
sons, or snch other court having criminal jurisdiction
the Ju,tce should cesgnats, 20 answer TO any In
stated that the deisndant was ready to enter into
enhance, with sucleEt suretes, In sucn amount
the Justice should ceterm.Ee.
Mr. Werner in behalf OF the conpls nan. :. denied the
right OF the ttfepdsnt to be admitted 10 rail insisting
that The act required the msysae % try tbs cause and
pr.cludsd him ffom seIdcg II 10 another csurt lie
cainc that ID. re vas Authority for such proceed
Mr. Porter cisse the resent cve in New York where
That course hsd been pursuen and srrred the Court
The Gih sscon Of tue Prohitory law, .hich provide.
hat the cncer before whom the complaint Il made
authorized and utr.dn not msrey TO hold courts
for the fsi OF complaints bu. aso to AL other acts
and exercise the authority that mar be done
ex.rcitedb by justices Of the peace in criminal Il.
referred 10 the revived statutes 10 sbow that of
thus conferred upon ths systfate snA %
the duties thus imposed upon him BY lav .as. II tho
acenten 80 elected 10 hold hin 70 bail 10 %
Indictment for the offence charged the Court OF
stpsops having criminal jurisdiction. lie claimed that
the Apgusgs n ,ec,ion vas clear and =, pl cit
the grppt Of power TO tho ma gistFse bfo.d and
eonprtbensive; the rights OF the secured
BY the ssyause msadAe 20 tb- magistrate ~njosning
uron him To. exercise OF the power conferred and
the could only he deprived OF h privilege ~
ihe fefutal OF the magistrate 10 obey that adAts
% ne
sistutes, and of the Prohbitofy w sno ssd that
II the act vas "a b. eonstrpsd as elsiunea by the
counsel for the prosecution, " In plain conflict
with the ttuton. II deprived him Of the ght at
his election 10 be tried accord tia of CON
law, by Court OF Record, and jary o. twelve Of
his peers. II invested an n.rlsr rioun.l With power
TO convict him criminal without the beasat Of the
Esfesusrds which, in ordinary The as lnierpoaea
fer the protection Of the etzsn between the accused
and the accuscr Hsubjected him 20 deprivation OF hs
liberty, ana to ignominious sicton wboat due
process Of law. u distinguished him from at others
charged criminals, when the very section dis
the intent to place him tbs foot
ing with other parties charged with violation of cnml
nal laws No such construction could 5s aphsli. !
vas in direct conflict With the plain language of tn
section ara II adopted, involved the insadity of n
Act The defendant insisted upon bis rights s@eursd
used for his conviction, II should be equally en- -acou
sten invoked for his protection. The section
which confsrs Jurisdiction upon the nsgstrAie ~.
rity ss n other criminal cAea. Among these 10
ths po~.r 10 hold the accused 10 bail Ihss bail b.
eas, h' sPpns.,1n a ca, n ny ny S'sn.s e. nos l.s;y
mandate OF the law seems plain. 10 you II msy sesn
otherwise and II you hold mus; sequis.ss n tn
ceci,on The learned counsel however, viii excuse me
Tor aging that It seems 70 Be strange anomaly con
nsctec with this prosecution, that now for sseosd
tine in ,ut for the snforeernsn, of The law he
strained to ignore ts plain prov,ors rhtn nvo.d for
tie protection Of the rights OF the accused.
NJ Werner assisted In behalf of ,hs copslnant that
try the defendant, and made u bis iaty 70 iry him
specify ss Court vas no, bSni 70 Dold TIE prsoa.r
TAU. S,cn Ifoc.eoing would Involve ceay, ana
might be the means OF d.f.stnx the ends ot ustrs.
III. ,a- confsnplates trial hers, and not only
Indictment peosssary and trsi By jury tvelvs,
but 20 staninaon as nscsssary 10 tbs Court OF
special Sessions. Tho decision in Sev Yors hM
no spphcaiion Tor TIE cog-t 10 tha. cAss hsd ~
a satssgasnt statute tea csJrytt of tbs poysr %
sunmonlng jury, and cor1.o asn.ir cruia A.. try
under ibis act mi ihs ertfo.e In Mat e.ss "
the rover 70 bold te bal therefore 40 pser~srt
Tor IRE tpsfcse oi similar POSER bs-~ Hs g. nsf ihst
he sitbsr nov Or "a lie fsrnfr eHcusR,s ignored ssy
q the rrssi,ph Of Ia Protibs.ory iAw VIA b
elsisd vas that the Jastcs had povsr trr ths "a.
fenosnl bl' noftss same psv~ ~ - sstsr srnlaA