New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-05-10

Mr.. James w. Gerard has given his opinion
that the Liquor Law is void. How much he
gets for it We don't know, but he is of course
we'll paid No man gives such an opinion at
such length for nothing. The number of just
such opinions that the liquor-dealers can get
from the lawyers is only limited by their means
of paying for them. If the rum-sellers think
they serve their purpose, OF course they will
multiply and fill the newspapers with endless
specimens of the pettifogging craft.
We have read this opinion with some care, and
it seems to us that if the liquor-deaers have
nothing better to offer they would consult their
interests by saying nothing But this is their
business, and not ours. Mr.. Gerard makes his
answer apply to four points. The two of I'M
portance it touches, and which are the basis
of the other two are the right of the dealer to
sell all imported liquors without hinderance-a
right denied from the express terms of the act;
and the other is the denial of the right Of the
Legislature to cOniscate intoxicating drinks at
all. This last right is one which every prohibit
DRY law presupposes, and is in fact their corner
stone Ii has been sustained by the Courts
of every State where successful prohbitory law
is in operation. We put the authority of these
various State Courts against the psid-for opinion
of Mr.. Gerard, as conclusive on this head.
On the other point, namely, that the law cuts
its own throat by provision of couple of lines
introduced at the end of one of its numerous
sections, we have heretofore commented. This
provision is the one of which We hear the most
1t is in terms: "This section shall not apply to
"liquors the right to sell which in this State is
"giyen by any law or treaty of the United
Estates" Mr.. Gerard asserts that this pro-
vision utilities the whole law so far it applies
to imported liquors. Yet in the face of the as
serton he admits in terms, that he sis not
.'aware that there is now in force any law or
"treaty of the United States in terms confer
"ring the right to sell liquor in this State" But
he nevertheless makes out his ease to his own
satisfaction and We suppose to that of his en-
ployers.
Now we take ii that the Legislature did not
mean to annul the entire prohibitory statute bya
couple of explanatory lines added to the first
section, and if they did not mean to oyerturn
their whole work in such preposterous fashion,
the question arises how the brief clause shall be
construed. OF course it will be the desire of
any Court, not composed of pettifoggers, to carry
out the spirit and intent of the whole enactment
and to construe this clause accordingly. Mr..
Gerard himself points out the plain road to
sensible judicial decision on this point. The
Court considering it has only to declare, in the
language of Mr.. Gerard, that inasmuch as there
sis not now any law or treaty of the United
Estates in force in terms comforting the right
"to sell liquor in this State" therefore the
Legislature has not exempted any kind of liquor
from the operation Of the law, and it applies as
well to imported as to all other kinds of intoxi-
eating drinks The deductions of Mr.. Gerard
drawn from other considerations, must be con-
sidered totally inadmissible, inasmuch as they
are in direct conflict with the plain intent of the
statute