The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-07-18
THE PRoHIBIToRY LIQUOR LAW.

Arguments IN the Poughkecpssc lager Bier
Case-sepsIasents az the judges Adverse 90
the Law.
sUPRyME COURT GENERAL TERM SECOND DISTRICT.
Before Judges Strong, Br'wa and Rockwell.
The OF the pope against Philip Barverek, where
conviction had BEEN recently obtained In Poughkeep
se came up yesterday before the Supreme Coart gen
erA term. held in Brookiyn, before judges Strong,
Brown and Rock rel, writ OF certiorAri. There
large attendance spectators and much interest ives
Suanifestsd in tho proceedings The prosecution was
represented by Messr Campbell AID Taomp SON and the
defence by Mersrs. Nelson and Barnard. Mr., Whiting
was present Watching the proceedings.
Mr. BARNARD, counsel for prisonsr, moved his dis
charge from custody for the that tia law under
which had been convinced null and vols IS being
nconsttutiopsl ana also bscsuss the proces Iings
under which he had been convicted we're informal and
Illegal
MI. CAxrssLL, for the people, resisted the appuca
top BE contended that the warrant under which this
prisoner had been arrested proper legal form;
and even 1t vera not that under of certor sri
the Court had right to the irregularity OF
the primary procssoings He referred to lat rbour $40
whore the same question fully gone into, whsre
Judge Mason delivered the opinion Of the court thu
under hAbeas corpuswh;cn counsel considsrsd OF
equal effect In this regard With tiorar-sbey Mad
sucn right II TIE wLrsnt IL regular on Its face 1t is
pTtnid Jacie suitct nj la justify lmrriso0msat
Judge strong in thas case tos oDiy aiisg atom
that Of the provisaas OF tia statute
sutution or tia toere 70 irregularities in thu pro-
ceedrgs. Bot here they go further 70 toe very foun
daon Of the Gaze They contend here that thsro no
Counsel--so they did IN that case. They said that
the law sas unconstitutional and void.
Judge Sncrg -Jus gr Macon Did not go that length.
CoupseL-He says no hung about tue nconstitaiional
question at -, but % takes up sbe othsr po MT and
Gays, that il here colorado authority TO arrest the
ptsor tho Court wiz not lock at the regularity OF She
Judge Strong -But tbs question ,omss up whether
il ths court satisfied ,ba whole statute confsr
rig authority is ents+y unconstitutional null and
void The court must rot hold that TIE party not held
under competent aao legsJ authority AID therefore dis
charge him.
Counsel Is another case In IS Johnson, 3o3,
where casa WINS issued, and the person arrsstedihe
writ being iregrlsr. In that the court said 1t
w0ulo not discharge the man d babeas corpus
though the wrt unoer wtco he had beer arrested
absolutely void that not the oper remedy
Judge Bro On Bat goa zee thxt in tois cass the
wnoie srngs are asssied the ground That the
legislature had 10 power to pass such Law, an5 they
had cot Ien the pre- ceedpgs IN The cour. have eff
cacy whatever 1t strikes >ttns very root OF the whos
proceedings. because ,he Legislature IL limited In its
power; Anc IL they choote transcspd that 20 wer In
just a. any ohyr person took upon them to enact
laws.
tie right Of the proper be tired but only object
ing to his rsLt be tree ceroran habsas corpus.
that the court look be.,ed ard the
affidavit n any case Whatever and thas If there
colorado authority for bod'ns the prisoner che couct
would not unceftAse 10 cecoe the real lawful tho
rity. He vntured to sas, that VII n proceedings OF
this hind were commenced, when the o1leer made
turn and presented the warrant that The prisonsr ia
p~A fatie suppose be lawful and tho pro
ctedipgs are eli presumed to be regular Under ~rt
Of ha beas corpus certorer is to be disc
only the ground thai hs .xnsd upoa unia wui
proceeds g. salce fson ihe ece that the law Is
tttutiersi il stemeo pecrssary in this dscu ,on to
90 back and see what an noriy the efsa.ure had and
whether IN pesapg tois Ia rot prohio tory but
j. pevsptins he sale of uqaoss as bever4se--they
had ryc 4tnnIA hair rfuhf nd mn nn
have uIysads,ed their rights TO the Lsgi.lsture-
Judge srRoSe-Qc Aihy That soms~hat
IL qualified go tbes they e.pnot psss lay Witch
clearly violates some Of tbs iualisnable rights
10 1t ii and from the very nstare Of the
cannot bs Ihs uoc!iops of the Legislature
are jntt a. eiesrly marked as those Of tae judges:
Judge Strbns-ihs const,tn ton Of the United States
guarantees form o. government 10 each state, and
that guarantee sth prevents each State from trans
lean irtttu,ops TIE STATE ks,satures cannot pass
-derpotic ,avs.
Counsel-lt would be difficult question TO frd out
what should he resared otto laws, because 1t 10
held by the upad states courts that in
sttuton OF the United States pc applies to the
the ry zach State has ill the reserved rights
winch eau possibly DO 'xercised
JucPe suerg--1hey have not the right to pass des-
CouI..i-wsn. do mot say they have, because the
but where the cors ttuton is ilsot, then
Is,y each stat: lss g Ngsss ana may DO .ny.ning MOI
the state Of New YorE 1896 says that such of
the common law and OF tho statutes In orce in the
. :. est 70 ss y
to alter. amend, rep ~ sno vary tie same
Judge Brown.IhAt merely reierrei to cersain lesis
1ative rules viii b existed 1T that time. II oocs not
touch the question: OF constitutional power oa the part
OF tie Lesivlsturs
Counsel supposed that it ala, and Ima:e such argu:
meot He contended tint tie people Of the stats Of
New Ysgk had SURRENDERED their rights to the
s st a. .s' sss: Of the us;a %
the government OF thu united States. That
questsa he'd been discussed By the coarts and
ttAat the prn ls OF Enshsh governmsnt tia. par
AamsEt IS omsipotsss eoes not prevail IN the United
States attou n there be constitutional objection
to statute il II with rs as absolute and unconsrol'a
Die .. isv ao.ins from the sovereign power In any
ten eoDstitut,on Of the legislature may DO void
the constitution" Kent lays down the rale
q Grs.t Britain IT, except wners It Is bound
"a BY the Counsel proceeded to argue that
wherever es.tive acts DO not interfere -tn the con
sttu!on with any Of the iaAlenabs rights Of man
asi, LIST hn $40, is Peter a2o. The .st 10 question
reported IN Howard the judges declared the la~
Judge strops-Ihe act passed upon in that case was
simply regulation and pot entire prohibition.
Cousse-In tpis case there IS not entire prohibit
Judge the court of the United States evsr
passed upon an act prohibiting saief
Ccusssl-ho; the question was never before then en-.
was passed similar TO in $780, that every town
u.ieht for itseh decide whether there should be any
licenses ersptsd In tho town Of Cumberland it was
votsd that tnere should b license. person that
town bougtt the liquor after the passed, which
was The occasion OF the suit That up aud
Vas decided tn It that law constitutional far
the Omitted States was coscerped.
Judge sropg Lid the act prohibit the sais Of liquors
entirely, CT did IL only refer TO lcense2
Counss-lt rgulsteo It by lissuse, but In the town
in question they voted there should be no license It
was . viItual prohibition In New Hsmpsnire the act
rrobated the sas entirely except IL sod la QuAu
tues Of twenty eight gallons, and that decided TO
he cossttu.topal THEREFOR, long ~ The Legislature
does not vic ,sfs any OF The nacnRbe rights Of
any provisions Of the consttution, they have
right psss such Law NJ the present. and the only
way a. eettr rid OF this Law 10 Dy esctng l%sisla.
tufe 70 reps Now 10 what resp~c; Goes this Law NO
late srkle ptivsge Of the cousutat'op bestes the
ono Which We hte us discussed that The mere fact o.
They ray that ~ Illegal 70 DE- prse person OF trial
by jury IN spy manner also that IL Ii illegal TO compel
him 70 by six Of by twelve men Thep ssy
that that % al on fhr around that Rer-