The Richmond Indiana palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1854-1855, 1855-07-26
RICHMOND PALLADIUM.
Thursday Morning,::::::;:;;;; S"' i'"''
PRoHrBIrIoS IN NEW YoYK.-The Prohibi-

Pporup,rros IN New YoYK-The Prohibit
,toYy Law of New York went into force on the
4th inst From the accounts received, 1t ap-
pears to be generally observed in all the
country towns and villages throughout the
state, and its beneficial effects are becoming
very apparent; but in the larger cities the
law is almost dead letter on the statute book.
Il was always expected. that in the city Of
New York, serious obstacles would be en-
countered in enforcing such a law. but hav-
ing Mayor possessed Of unusual energy,
and disposition TO promote reform OF every
kind, the friends Of this law regarded il AS an
suspicious time for its going into force. They
have been, however, doomed to disappoint..
ment. Just before the law went into effect,
Mayor Wood issued special Instructions to
the police force under his charge, in which
he directed them TO be particularly careful
not to make arrests or seize liquor even when
they might it exposed to public view,
apparently for sale. unless they knew it had
been sold, and then they must know positirely,
that the liquor was not imported; and warned
them of the heavy responsibility" they would
incur by Selling such liquor. The result Of
these instruction was what might have been
expected Liquor sellers increased in mum
bers and boldness. and. shielding themselves
under the Mayors construction of the law,
that tie retailing Of imported liquor was not
prohibited, they then commenced selling on
larger scale than ever before, what they
termed imported liquors. The police Off
would make no arrests except upon regu-
lar warrants, and very few were consequently
made. Some of these being brought before
the police magistrstes. they decided that they
had no jurisdiction over them-that they
should be referred to the quarter sessions
court Here was a new difficulty. So now
it may be truly said that intoxicating liquor
"runs riot in that devoted city. Though
there are frequent arrests Of intoxicated per
sons found in the streets. yet this does not
sensibly diminish the amount of drinking.
Every possible obstruction will be thrown in
the way Of the execution Of the law, that can
be devised by liquor sellers. orxtheir Legal
advisers under the powerful stimulus .of@tfye
fees. The Liquor influence is still potent
with office holding and Office seeking dema-
gogues, and it cannot be overcome in a strong
hold Ike New York. except by long and
hard and persevering struggle.
--~~-,---,-
THE GREAT LIQUOR Casa short time
ago, man by the name Of Beebe residing
ut Indianapolis, was prosecuted for selling
and manufacturing intoxicating liquors, and
by consent Of parties the case was taken up
to the Supreme court in order to test the con-
stitutionsity of the law. 1t was brought be
fore that court some two weeks since, and
ably argued by Judge Morrison. Judge Otto.
j. w. Chapman, j. S. Hester, David Wal
lace and E. Coburn, against the law and by
Judge M'Donald. Z. Dumont. l.. Barber, A.
G. Porter, III. C. Newcomb. and j. w. Cor
don for the Law
The chief points made against the law were,
briefly the following:
l. That more than one subject was embra-
ccd in the bil-the manufacturing and selling
and the appointment of agents. being distinct
subjects.
2. That the law did no. make it imperative
on the boards Of commissioners to appoint
agents, and as agents nigh, be appointed in
one county and not in the other. the law Was
special or local, and hence, unconstitutional
within the ruling Of the Supreme court in the
Maize case.
3 That the comforting on individuals, as
in section two of the law, and on the counties
of the exclusive right to sell liquors, was
monopoly, and hence. in conflict with section
%. article |. of the constitution.
a. That the right of trial by jury is not
given by the act.
8 That the clause in the act which dis
qualities person from sitting on Jury on
trial for violating this law. who has sysr
liquor law. is unconstitutional
6. That the affidavit authorizing a search
is not required to specify the particular kind
of spirituous liquor, and hence conflicts with
article l, sec. IL, of the constitution.
7. That when a seizure is made under sec
ton 90 of the law. there is no direction as to
what disposition shall be made of the property.
or how it shall be returned TO the owner if
not kept for an illegal purpose.
6. That some of the provisions are mani
testify unconstitutional. and they are so init
mately connected and blended with those
which might otherwise he constitutional. as
to be inseperable. SO the whole law must fall /
The answer made TO these objections are
summed up as follows:
i. nat the general clause IN the title of
the bill Ito suppress the evils of intemper-
ance" was clearly broad enough to cover the
whole subject matter of the bill
2, That if that clause were ever imperative. +
still the clause in the Constitution requiring
that a law shall embrace but one subject and
matters properly connected Herewith which .
subject talone) shall be embraced in the title.
does not defeat the operation Of any part Of
the law, as every thing in the law is properly
connected with the subject embraced in the
title
5. That the subject Of law and matter
properly connected herewith Is the ,p;,cI;.,-