The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1856-01-11
INpIANApoIds. jan. 2. 1856.

LADIES: Your letter of yesterday, asking an
explanation ofthe late decision of the Supreme
Court upon the Liquor Law of 1855, is before
me, and hasten to answer though regret |
cannot do so to the extent of your wishes, as
the Court itself has not considered the ques-
ton so far as [ am advised, of the effect gifts
decision upon future sales of liquor. The
court being composed Of four, it requires a
concurrence of three Judges to decide any
point positively. An equal division affirms
the Judgment of the lower court, whatever it
may be, and settles nothing but the particular
case under consideration.
In the late decision fthe Supreme Court,
to which you refer, no three Judges concGrred
except in holding the prohibition, contained in
the law, to manufacture, and the creation of
county agents to sell unconstitutional; hence,
nothing more was decided. These points
were sufficient with the aid of a properly used
technicality, to dispose of the case of Beebe,
then before the court, and hence the court
proceeded no further. Such is its practice.
The inquiry which you put, now very
naturally suggests itself What is to be the
effect of the decision made, upon future liquor
selling? The law, in its first section, con
tanned an absolute prohibition upon all the
people Of the State to sell, with an exception.
The exception was q speak. generality that
1certain county agents might SELL The Su-
preme Court declared that exception Illegal
and perhaps the most logical consequence is
THAT the exception being void, the absolute
prohibition stands, so that no one can sell
for any purpose.
/ But the position is taken that, under the
decision, every person can sell for the purposes
that eounly agents did. And again, it is a
very grave question whether so large por-
ton of the law has not been stricken out as to
leave the remainder so variant from what the
Legislature intended, that the whole must
fall; and if reinforced, be SO as law made by
1.-THE court and not by the Legislature.
These are questions yet to be decided. They
Twill undergo professional discussion and judi
IciaI decision in the lower courts, and ultimately
make their way to the Supreme Court for fna
determination. Yolr own good sense, there
fore will at once suggest the improperly o
any unofficial declaration of opinion upon
them by me.
4 l regret exceedingly to learn that intern
4 perance is so extensively prevailing in YOU
beautiful city, so long my home-that weak
ness and folly there enter so largely into thc
; composition of human nature and that mora
influence is so powerless. Those of you with
whom have the pleasure of an acquaintance
will excuse me in saying that l endeayor Il
make my own and the lives OF the member
of my family, illustrations of personal regart
: for temperance, and that / have an interes
equal to that of the average Of men, in the main
tenance of order and well being in community
and no motive to encourage the contrary
But, in my Judgment, no temporary inconven
: fence, or partial short-lived disorder can b
IS weighed against judicially sanctioned inva
I sion Of tie Constitution Hence my cours
upon the liquor act in question regret, a
so, that a law, as might have been the cas-
: within the Constitution, was not passed by th
Legislature of1855, that efficiently enforced
+ would have remedied the evils of which 70
complain, as | look as doubtless you do, an.
Iously to the session of 1857 to give us. th
ID boon so earnestly to be wished. sss
With sentiments of the highest esteem,
yours, &C., S. E. PERKINS.
Miss MARTHA ". BRowN, and Others, Con
I, fmittce, Richmond, Ind.