New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-07-23

~. : 10 ofreHse 81 which we have been guilty
And if thew say tina; the sale Of imported M loI IN
fk5s particular Is the ohense we q tih tha1
we have RICH; to have that set form IN inc con-
pient-that The complaint should distinctly s'a'e Nu9'
Il is we are COM planned o..
deceptive or an explanation of Ehst Is excepted
Mr. HtppEs-Ycs: that in order 70 make It coinpre-
hensve II expresses all those kinds Of liquor which the
Legislature n,enced 70 exempt they referred 70 tao'e
laws and treaties Of the United States for the purpose
of Designating them. Aud we claim TIC rish' 20 seH
beeaqse they bave not prohibited any OF me- 49,.
Judge STEosG-Ihe question then arises "no.he'
the article sold is a prohibited or an excepted aricie'
Ii NAV b. excepted article and It may he an article
prohibited. | suppose that Is 81 important question:
Nh HADDEN-We claim. by all rules OF logo and
reason that this exception is included IN the BODY OF
the general provision for although its true Il placed
in specific terms at the conclusion OF the section tue
Court will SET it l. ref rred 10 the first clause of the
section:
Intoxicating qUer e-eeFg heresfisr Pro,ides shall not
be sold
So that The exception is already in the body of the
general provision, ard merely more definitely described
e, the close of the section. AID IN reference to tbs
would cell the attention Of The Court 10 two or three
authors. II the sd Of Saunders on Pleading, p. 20,
occurs the following remark.
When the exception is embodied IN the general provision
rue, he sverTed ~ The pleading
The other authorities to which | would refer arc in
tie case of NayGsom vs. O.rnond, SIKH Of Barn and
CressreH, D. 49,, tn English Common Lar Reports;
first OF Gangs Common Lac Reports, p. Ss5, 2sS
Now then the Court pill perceive b reference to this
case dat the two articles which the defendant IL
Oh argod with having sold brandy ald champagne
wne With regard 20 the first there is NJ evidence in
the case whether the brandy was foreign Or domestic
brandy. We claim that we have RICH. to have Il
suecifed that if the brandy ia domestic liquor aud
we are to be hell liable cor the seias OF domestic
liquor
Judge SrRo,G-Champagne il understood, sup
rose to be foreign liquor
NJ hut hon n il. fNl IA
ali hands that we have right to sell foreign liquor in
tho original packages or in other words to sell in any
mode permitted by the laws AID treaties OF the United
States.
restricted to certain quantities by the Custom-House
laws
Dir. Lorr-Tbere is no restriction on champagne;
there s restriction to 90 galous on brandy, but on
wines there is TO esricon. | have taken particular
pains to inquire on that subject at the Cusom-Honse.
believe champagne pays ad yaloTem duty OF hity
per cent.
Nj HADDYN-It cannot be as,ertained thai thero is
any mitation one bottle of champagne Is an original
package.
Mr. WAY Corr-Yhen you separate the bottles Of
On original package and sell them, you are selling by
retail and in dong you bring the matter within the
iurisciciiou OF the laws Of the State.
Mr. HADDEs-In the case o. Brown VS. tho state Of
Maryland it not go ruled refer to the 18th OF
Wheaton page 40:
Importation gives the risht to sell
Judge STRoSG-lt may be question whether it ia q
complaint for selling several articles Jointly, or
whether tho complaint! contains distno! charges for
selling the severa articles enumerated. 1t is an i'm
portaut question whether the failing to prove guilt
charge would nyalidae the other II there IL one
charge for selling champagne and brandy, and Il Is
Joint conviction, the question will be whether, the
ore article was legally and lawfully sold, and the
other not the conviction for both would stand.
Mr.. HADDES-lt is impossible to know for which
particular oct the complaint was made.
Ill. AVnF In ofrap har nj Cn
may consider whether, supposing one sold yendable
article and the other not the conviction under these
circumstances could stand.
Mr. VAN CoTr-Ihe champagne was forfeited, and
If il is proved to have been legally sold there must
be revorsion of the decision.
Mr. HADDFs-We are charged with selling brandy
and selling champagne, and kee ping these articles with
the intention Of selling them. These are the only two
~ tolts specified. Now claim that we have con-
stutioual right to be tried under Indictment If
are tried al all, and in support of that proposition
would merely make the suggestion that IN my ludg-
meDt the Legislature by the construction OF this act
and by the provisions il contains this subject, have
thought proper 10 designate, not in terms but By lm-
pliCatoD that this oftense that are charged with is
an Infamous crime. say this in the first place because
il treated throughout with Gritty of puishm
which designates a by the peculiar construc-
ton paced upon it by iurists, aud by the whole
scope ard application Of the subject Thus then
contend that by excluding from the right to sit
upon a jury those who are engaged IN this traffic,
the Legislature must have intended 10 imply that
this traffic is infamous traffic, and that tas act is
an Infamous crime, because unless that the object
they have DISTINGUISHED and deprived whole class
of persons OF the right secured to them by the
frst provisions Of thesConstitution. Ii is said
that tits class of penons are e1cuiot from
eiltIg on a jury not because tins traffic IS
Infamous but because they sufficiently interested
in this question to render them incompetent as jurors.
Now then would say, il it the only interest which
these persons have in such a case it is very small
reason for excluding them as jurors. IL IL not that
they would not bear any expense in any results that
may flow from verdict of jury in such cases, it is
said but because they may be opposed in principle Ia
feeling and in opinion to the very Act itself Now,
can il be that Legislature has any right to say that
whole class of the community incompetent TO act
ar Jurors have not the benefit Of selection from
class of the community such a number as might be
recessary 10 act a. jurors upon any trial because they
have certain opinions az variance with the majority OF
The people, What nteres, can these men have unless
be the interest OF determining the right of the Legs
laure to pass this Act upon any principle OF tho Con-
siitutOn-to determine if the Legislature has any right
To say that any class OF the community that does not
coincide in opinion with the acts OF the Legislature
shall not sit jury There IL no other reason. l.
Therefore have right to infer that the only for
which these Jurors be lcgiumaely excluded would
be because the csliDg-the traffic IN which they are
eueaCed-is of such nature renders them unit to
be jurors. No act, unless infamous in its nature, can
preclude citizens from acting Jurors. The first arti
Gle of the Constitution OF this STATE provides that no
citizen If ths State shall be- dsfcanchlsed deprived
OF any OF ule Iguls Oh cIi.Iehs uHess ny III" Vi Wv
State or the judgment Of bis peers. Section second OF
the same article provides that the right OF
trial by Jury in all cases shall remain inyiolate
forever That aluds of course to aury of toeire men,
Now then, make this proposition: Tina, the effect
of this act and of all its prOylsons being obviously
to render certain species Of property comparatively
yaiueless il is mnnifesy violation Of vested rights
of its owners and of those fundamental ri, hts which
underle all laws and constitutions which IL is their OBJ
ect to protect and preserve IL has appeared to me
that era many Of the objections to this oct which
have been supposed to derive their force from their
heinz In violation and repugnance 20 tho Constitution