The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1855-01-31
Decision Of the Supreme Court on
the LIQUOR Law.

Decision Of the Supreme Court on
the Liquor Law.
BY the following decision, il will be seen |
hat the Liquor Law has been sustained
BY the Supreme Court, and that in its exe-
cution in this county, il has corresponded
very nearly with the decision. The only
difference being, that it is neces-
sary to prove that the seller, prosecuted
under the 3rd section, knew at the time
of the selling that the buyer was minor;
and under the ed section that the seller
knew the buyer to be in the habit of getting
Present-THuRNAN, Chief Justice, and
RANNEY, BARTLEY, WARDEN and KENNoN,
Judges.
No. l48. Frederick Miller v. The State
In error to the Probate Court Of Clermont
county.
No. 179. Levin Gibson v. The State.
In error to the Probate Court OF Union
county.
Z. The plaintiffs in error were prosecuted
for violations OF the 4th section of the act
of May /, 1854, entitled san act to pro.
vide against the evils resulting from the
sale OF intoxicating Liquors in the State
Of Ohio;" which section provides: "That
all places where intoxicating liquors are
sold in violation of this act, shall be taken,
held, and declared TO be common nui-
sances; and all rooms, taverns. eating.
houses. bazaars, restaurants, groceries,
coffee. houses, cellars, or other places of
public resort, where intoxicating liquors
are sold in violation, of this act, shall be
shut up and abated as public nuisances,
upon the conviction of the keeper thereof,
who shall be punished as herein after pro.
vided."
Being convicted, they were. respective
ly, sentenced to pay fines and be imprs-
oned; and orders made that tho rooms by
them kept should be shut up until bond
and security should be given pursuant to
the 9th section of said act. To reverse
which sentences and orders these writs
were brought.
THURMAN. C. j.. delivered the opinion
of the Court. Held
/. That, for aught that appears in the
journals Of the Senate and House of Rep
resentatves of the General Assembly, the
oct Of May /, 1854, entitled, IAN act to
provide against the evils resulting from the
sale Of intoxicating Liquors in the State
Of Ohio" was constitutionally enacted.
e. That the provision of the Constisu.
ton Cart. 2, SEQ. l6, that Every bill shall
be fully and distinctly read on three dit.
ferent days, unless, in case of urgency,
three four,hs Of the House in which it shall
be pending shall dispense with this rule, .
does not require that every amendment to
bill shall be read three times.
3. Every reasonable intendmsnt is to
be made in favor OF the proceedings of the
Legislature. 1, is not to be presumed
that the Assembly, or either House of it,
has violated the Constitution. When.
therefore, it appears by the journa that
bill was amended by striking out all after
the enacting CLAUSE and inserting '.new
BILL" SO called, it cannot be presumed
that the matter inserted was upon diff.
ferent subject from that stricken out; espe.
clally when tho matter inserted is consist
ent with the title borne by the bill before
such amendment. This is the more obvi-
ooo cihOC tD0 SOuouSouOu PtONAAVS thots
mo bill shall contain more than one sub.
ject. which shall be clearly expressed in
its title" Cart. 2, sec. l6.). Nor does
the fact that the inserted matter is called
"new bilP' prove that it was not an
amendment.
q. No bill can become law without
receiving the number Of votes required by
the Constitution, and il it was found, by
an inspection of the Legislative journals,
that what purports to be law upon the
statute book was not passed by the requis-
ite number of votes, it might. possibly. be
the duty OF the Courts to treat it as q nul.
Iity. But i, does not follow that An act
that was passed by constitutional major.
ity is invalid, because, in it's considers.
ton, the Assembly did not strictly observe
the mode OF procedure prescribed by the
Constitution. There are provisions in
that instrument that are directory in ,hei,
charac cter, the observance of which by the
| Assembly is secured by their sense OF duty
and Official oaths, and not by any super.
visory power of the Courts.
| 5. Neither the lst, cd, Sd, 4th or 9th
sections of the act under consideration
properly construed, is repugnant to the
Constitution. In saying this, we do no
mean to affirm that the Legislature ha.
the power to wholly prohibit the traffic ir
Intoxicating liquors in this State. With
out deciding whether the Assembly has
any power over this subject in virtue o
the general grant of legislative power ii
sec@ 1 OF art. 2 Of the Constitution, We
hold that the enactment of said section.
Of the law is authorized by the expires.
grant Of power in SEQ. 18 Of art. 16, II
these words: "No license to traffic in in
toxicating liquors shall hereafter be gran.
ed in this State, but the General Assembly
may, by law. provide against evils result
ing therefrom.''
| g. A violation Of either of the 1st, 2t
or Sd sections>of the act, subjects the Of
fender to the penalties mentioned in the
first clause Of sec. 8. tits not necessary
in order TO incur these penalties, that al
three actions be violated.
Z. II sale violate all three sections
the offender may be prosecuted under
either Of them; and his conviction, OF
acqui.tal. will bar prosecution, for the