Marshall County Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1855-1859, 1855-11-15
The question now presents itself,

u IN investigating TINS question: rs no stch law In a
country possessed of Judiciary and constitution
limiting the legislative powers. has till of late been
enacted. Seine twelve hundred year, AGO, Mahom-
ct made suc'. Il law part of h> reoolSacrecd in
opposition 10 the Jewish and Christian systems,
which recommended the moderate, hut forbid the
excessive use Intoxicating liquors This Law of
Mahomct, Koran, pi - AMI - pcrhap the first
rrohbit0ry ACT but il does no: appear TO have heen
adopted b civilized nations till its latc revival i'll
some shape or other in one more of our sister
States. Hence. il has not often. if ut all, 10 this
point pissed under judicial consideration.
: \ number of European writers on natural. pub
lie, and civil law are cited by counsel on bchal ofthc
State. to show the extent of legislative power but
tSsc writer's respectable, able. and instructive upon
-cnIe subjects "a they are admitted TO be- are not -
thority here this doint. They dangerous,
indeed utterly blind guides to follow i'll searching
for the landmarks ollegslativc power. in free
and limited governments for they had in view, when
writing, governments a. existing when and where
they wrote; under which they lived and been edu-
Gated, and which h: no written constitutions limit
ing their power.-gOvernments the theory ofwhich
wa that they paternal in charactcr-that all
power III them 10y divine right. and they hence.
absolute; that the people of country had rights
except what the government of that country gra-
ciou-ly liz TO confer upon them and that II was
its duty like Father towards his children, to
mand whateyerit deemed expedicnt for the public
public, recognizing in its members any individual
rights.
! Indeed. the discovery of TIC great doctrine of
rights i'll the people a. against the government had
not been made when the writers above referred to
! lived. Such governments those described
could adopt the maxim quoted by counsel. that the
safety al the people i the Supreme law. and act upon
it; and hcng orally the sole judges OF what their
safety. IN the countries governed. respectively re-
qlirc'l. could prescribe what the people should eat
and drink what political moral and religious crccdS
/ they should believe, and punish hcrcsy by burning
Il; the stake. all I the public good. Even in Great
Britain, esteemed 10 have the most liberal coStitrl-
ton on the Eastern continent. Magma Chari is not
of sufficient potency 10 restrain the action of Piria-
ment, the Judiciary do not. settled rule bring
laws To the test OF it, provisions. LAW, are there
ovcrthrown occasionally 10y judicial construction.
But here We have written constitutions which are
the supreme law, which legislatures are sworn to
support within whose restrictions they must limit
their action for the public welfare and whose blrri-
ers they cannot overleap, uncr any prctext ot sup
posed safety of the people: for along with written
constitutions we have judiciary whose duty it Is,
the only means OF securing to the people safety from
legislative aggression, to annrl a legislative action
without the pale ofthoSc instruments. This duty OF
the judicial department. in this country was demon
sfr.ltpd by Chief Justice Marshal. in Mulberry ".
: Madison tranch 10, and has since been rcorrin-
zed a. settled American law. The mlNim- above
quoted. therefore, applied to Legislative power, is
here without meaning.
Nor does ii prove the powered the State
legislature 10 enact the law III question. 10
show that the Supreme Court Of the Uni
ted State, has decided that il cannot de-
clare such STATE law imperative, for that
Court can only declare void such State
laws as conflict with the restrictions i'm
posed npon State power bv the ConS.itu-
! liol of Cniel States and if, il thai con
siiiuipn the States are not restrained from
passing laws in yiglaiion of the natural
rights of the citizen the Supr"me Court
Of the Unil.i SAT- eanao, a.. upon such
laws when passed. because iheg de- No. fall
within It's jurisdiction. IIene", that court
has decided that a SAT- may deprive lis
citizens OF properly without making com
pcnsa-i)n. and the righi OF trial by jury
Brown Y. The Mayor. d.. Peers 2i5
may pass laws dcpriyihg them ol vested
rights in property, and of the benefit of
! iuJgmon-s they may have obtained in
courts. and the like; S,;erlee V. Mathew
son, Peters $50, and the licepe,' eases in
oh Howard 51i: and no redress b. OBJ
tainabe in ihn United States Courts be-
cause the,c are 10 provisions in the United
Safes Constitution prohibiting the pass
AGE oi such Stale laws. Bat the Supreme
/ Court If this STATE has decided that un
( der oar Stat Constitution. the legislature
cannot cnact Law for the takin" otprivatr
property withou; making compensaion
cannot deprive the ci,izcn of the right of
! lul gmcnt Of Il court. d.. Young " he
State Bank, ih lad Rep. 30l.-McCor-
mic Lafayette. l.; Ind. 4@. The STATE Y
Mead. 1 Blackf3J9.
/ Il does not. therefore, follow that be-
clus.. The constitution of the Cni.ed States
does not prohibii STATE legislation infriag-
+ inc the natural rights of the citizen. such
legislation i valil The Constitution of
! The United States mav not, but that of the
STATE may. inhibi' i.
And 50. indeed according 10 many emf
ncnt judges, may principles of natural JUS
ticc. independent of all constitutional re-
strain:. This doctrine has been asserted
here In Andrews v Russell, I Blackf
474, Judge Dewv says: I'VE have said
that the Only provisions in the Federal or
S:ate Constitutions restrictive of the power
Of the legislature, dc" are, DE There are
certain absolute rights, and the right of
property is among them, which in all free
governments must of necessity be protect
ed from legislative Interference, prospect
i've of constitutional checks and guards.
Should we find however, in the course of
this investi5 CATION that the constitution of our
free State does, in fact. sufficiently protect
natural rights from Legislative interference,
rs it surely does or it is grievouslv defect
i've. i. will not become necessary for us TO
enquire whether in any event, it might be
proper to fall back upon the doctrine above
so unhesltatingly asserted.
Does our constitution, then. prohibit the
passage of such an act rs that now being
considered? 4 dictum Is quoted by coun
sci from the opinion in Beply '. The State.
1 Ind Rep. 26l, that 'it is competent for
the Legislature to declare any practise deem
ed injurious to the public nuisance, and