New-York daily tribune., 1856-03-31
THE LIQUOR LAW.

We give to-day the opinion OF Judge Selden oi
the Court of Appeals the cOnstitutonaity of the
law of last Winter for the Suppression Of Intem-
perance, Pauperism and Crime. This opinion is
represented in The Albany Erenng Journd! AS
"embodying more nearly throughout the sentiment
"of the majority of the Court than any other de-
"livered." That we are very happy to hear, as it
is entirely free from many of the most ObjectiOna
bic points made by Judge COmstOck in his opinion
delivered in the other case, and in which We were
led to suppose that majority of the Court of APP
peals had cOncurred.
Judge Selden, as will be sesn totally abjures the
Comstockian absurdity that liquors exist only to
be sold as beverage, and that therefore TO forbid
their sae for that purpose is to strike them out Of
existence. On the other hand, he recognizes in
the four first sections Of the law, only rightful
exercise of the power of the Legislature to regu-
late the traffic in liquors. The object of these first
four sections is to prohibit the sale of intoxicating
liquors, except for mechanical, chemical, medicinal
and sacramental purposes aadto prohibit their being
sold even for these purposes except by particular
class of persons and under special regulations.
This, in Judge Seldens opinion is nothing but the
old liquor law, with a certain ngor added TO it
the liberty Of selling these articles for the purposes
allowed being not merely cOlorable but still
leaving them in substantial possession of the at
tribute of being articles Of traffic.
The first difficulty which Judge Selden finds in
the act is in the provision which forbds any liquor
to be kept after the passage OF the act, except in
dwelling house, or in church or place Of wOr-
ship for sacramebtal purposes, or in place where
either some chemical or mechanical or medicinal
art requiring the Use OF liquor is carried on as
regular branch of business, or while in actual
transportation or stored in warehouse prior 10
reaching its place of destination. Had the act
provided some means by which the owners of
liquors. at the time il went into force, might still
have retained possession Of those liquors without
subjecting themselves to penalties, and might
have disposed Of them for such uses ss the
act still allowed OF, Judge Selden would
not have objected to it; but in its present
shape he thinks il leaves the owners of such
liquors no alternative except to destroy them, or
to subject themselves to penalty and the liquors
to seizure if they continue to hold them. The
right OF storage allowed in this section he seems
to regard as merely colorado. Some men, he
remarks, Town dwelling houses and some do not.
Some might have access to mechanical or manu-
featuring establishments and some would not. "
But is it not just as easy to hire dwelling house
as to hire a warehouse And were there not
dwelling houses enough in the State of New-York,
that might have been hired for that purpose, to
hold all the liquor in the State when the law went
into effect,
Judge Selden in fact holds that the provision
that liquors. unless kept in dwelling houses and
the other specified places, should immediately
upon the passage Of the oct become liable to sez.