New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-07-23

II elnnod on the part OF The defendant that he
hrft Of the act ~ question Pern's tue SAFE Oh
all foreign liquor. shall conoede TOR the purpose OF
arrunie,a that portion Of tue liquor seized In ths
.fgig- StRose-Do you admit that the champagne
va ~ ~ ed
Il "A CoTr-I shall but upon this qualification,
uAt ais honor brought IN under importation is In
81 nrss package before II is divided In lesser
a. 'iirs whatever quantity Is brought III al one
Fcs bflI'er restricted to minimum quantity or not,
o. the fscaee contanging that quantity must be re-
s,sSoed az the ofieiIsl package.
Jadee STKoSG-lf peIson brings in bat one bottle
At . time, that bottle ia the original PACKAGE
Mr.. Vas CoTT-Very WE'LL then II is accepted We
make ~ q package, or box, or b0ue--whatever Tue
separate parcel II on which duty is paid. 1t is the
duty that l. protect Your Honor veil see thst khs
n Obyious good sense. In The case OF Brown VS. ine
state Of Mary land was decided ihai me inPore, n
nebt 10 bTipg ia bottle or any quantity at aey time
DO lleases long as he pays the duty upon H. AL
the sane Ir > as be breaks up that quantity,
be gree, small, aud distributes me hquoT 1t toan
besop- ,.,ssect TO municipal regulation. But II
mr. lp1pOTis hottie IN taygeT preface when 1t 10
sen orr u that package II Is no longer under the
CO.. he exception IN the hsst seetien, ia my
= .,, a., Is r. whether II refers 20 imported liquor
o. 4 .iysa bu.k in any quantity. You cannot give
eject to tbs fst section AID this exception without
going out Of il,
rhs section 81 apply TO qoOI he right 70 sell which
q this State sven by any ia" or treaty OF 'ne Cn'ee Ss
II does not gay foreign" liquor ct all. Ii does
not cav imported liquor at all. You are, therefore,
obliged to 70 out OF this section 70 mud out what 1t
means and when you go out OF this section you must
70 anywhere and everywhere for sources OF consiruc
lion II you are TO 20 out of the &c, 10 obtain inio
nation 10 interpret it, you should find the treaties and
acts Of Congress this subject TO prove what are the
terms which foreign liquors imported to this CONF
inv NAV be sold by the importer OF original packages
Sappoee we were TO find express provision IN the
tresiies and acts Of Congress that imported liquors
might be sold in the original packages, then ask you
what would be the plain meaning OF this section
A Iny and
nal package would not that be limitation OF III
You may eel according TO treaty and act OF Congress,
and the treaty and act of Congress declare thaI you
shall eel the imported article in the original bulk and
not otherwise. But you go to the treaties and acts OF
Congress and you find no provision at all with regard
10 sale by the importer by including ~ our range OF
inquiry the decision of the Supreme Court above re-
ferred TO- however the limitation is at once inoor
porated, you may sell in the original packages but not
otherwise.
Judge srRosG-Suppose in this description in the
fret section of this act that they had Incorporated tins
feature and stated that this law sha not apply TO such
hquor and then specified the provision of the United
States law and also the decision Of the Supreme Court
and then said this law would not apply to such liquors,
what would have been the effect
Mr.. VAS CoTr-Upon very brief expression of thet
kind the Court would have to limit the exception az
have limited IL. consider justice ought 10 be admins
tered upon humane prir cples. The Court will see that
it il not for extend criminal law, but TO administer
The humane laws Of humane people We are not to
extend the policy of law to make reach II does
not reach but there is another paramount principle
of construction and that is this that the Intention
ofMe Legislature TO g0Uern and that the Court IS to
sssiduous TO find the intention of the Legislature
Judge STRoSG-That is a good rule 70 give when
be the law requires construction
Mr.. VAN CoTT-Thst is good in THE case; here we
say the meaning Is not PLAIN; or at least that ig the
position taken on the other side.
MI. LOTT-We say IL if plain.
Mr.VAs CoTT-Your Honon will find that the sole
Office of the odd section Of this act to define and limit.
IL contains no exception, rev offence, no new
substantive provision whatever; it is merely section
90 define and limit what was indefinite and Unlimited
IN the other parts of the Act. The Legislature said
this: we have included larger terms than we IN
"tended to include, and have excluded more than we
"ntended 10 exclude. We must now hmt and dehne
those to accord with the general purposes
"of the act and make il all plain" Now let us see.
The fret section prohibits all Intoxicating liquor; then
The twenty section limits the sale OF cider TO not
bess than ten gallons. There is limitation at
The same section says:
alcohol or Of pure wine from espes grown BY him from
ssepps from .eps such aeoh9 OF rre nor the mgoIs
packages TO person authorized by this act to sell such
bquon
Judge STRoSG--The liquor or wine TO be sold TO
authorized agents is not necessarily imported
Mr.. Vas CoTr-No; "being alcohol or wine manu-
fractured from grapes grown by himself.
Judge Observation-Disclosures do not mislead your
relves the prohibition in the first section is not
Mr. Van CoTr-It is subject to the provso.
Judge BRowN-Yesi except as hereinafter pro-
Mr. VAS CoTT-The same sections after making
exception in favor of burning uid and alcohol tor
manufacturing purposes, has the following exception
which has not before been referred TO:
Nor shall be lawful SEIZE sell destroy any liquors de-
poted OF found bonded warehouse within the limits q
this Sste prevent liquors om beng taken from such
The term uto1estins liquor and liquor a. red except
the act hs be considered to extend and include alcohol
cate and ali arussed liquors and mixed quo part Of which
~ alcohol, dsnled or malt liquor"
JudCe RRowN-The rpstriron un1cr the twenty.
second section ID much more constrained and refined.
Judge STRoNG-Much more so than The decision of
the Supreme Court before referred to-
Mr.. VAN CoTT-Now say, that unless II was the
intention of the oct 10 apply TO imported liquors,
was perfectly absurd 20 except without any
whatever, all imported liquors, matter in what guam
tity, and then aferward to define and limit in this
22d section in this way.
The 22d section provides that the article shall be sold
TO particular class of individuals whereas, in the
ception in the LIST section the decision of the supreme
Cont gives an unlimited right 10 all persons 10 whom
will apply. Whereas, If the Legislature intended 10
restrict Il almost entirely to small class OF individuals
think il proves too much.
Mr. VAN CoTT-The point on which | urge IL 10
simply this: not on the decision in the case of Brown
Agt the State of Maryland, but the general intent
Of the Legislature TO prohibit the sale of imported
liquors proved by their excepting thoee found IN q
bonded warehouse.
Judge BRowN-I think ii is conclusive that the ex-
oepton in the 22d section was not prepared by the
came person that prepared that in the LEI section and
that the former did not know what wac IN the LIST
section.
Mr.. VAS Corr-An argument canno, be applied in
that way. We have right 10 90 10 the trainers of
an sct for an Interpretation. We must take it a
whole.
now proceed to the second point, which embraces
the wkole law. IL the Legislature had right 20 pass
aprohibitoy law, then the details of the subject
not be made good law by legislative interpretation Is
II a total prohibition contend that II is not. be-