Weekly Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1853-1861, 1856-01-03

but that Of the circle of vicious INDULGENCE IN
which they move. Hence the necessity of lcgis
latiun on tina; and other evils which, alta super
fetal glance would seem 10 belong more appro-
priately TO the department Of private morals
OF this character are many of The sections under
the head of misdencauOrs i'm the revised laws.
In these and numerous other instances il is
found that actual experience creates eXigencics
not anticipated by mere legislative speculation.
The policy of severe laws we are not per
mitted To discuss. That lies between the people
and those To whom they have delegated the tenn
porary power of making laws; 4 Ind. 26l.-
Whether temperance is not better promoted bv
H. influence Of education and morality than by
stringent enactmentS is a subject worthy Of
! grave consideration. But we may he permitted
10 remark that a sudden change of policy or the
3 adoption of vindictive measures Is everto be de
precated. ''They provoke resistance when they
were designed to enforce obedience IL may
be observed generally of all the liquor laws of
Indiana for the last twenty years that II they
failed TO repress the evils of the liquOr traffic 1t
was not the fault of the law. That was sutli-
cien,ly stringent and rigorous. The fault was
in the execution. These milder laws have al
ways been in particular localities and more or
less everywhere a dead letter. Statutes cannot
execute themselves In proportion totheir Sc
verify they shock the moral sense Of tie people
and paralize the executive arm. When even
mild laws are not executed it is ex~travagant to
hope better things from Odious enaciments.
IL is said that the opinion of this court should
be placed ON such grounds rs would withdraw
the liquor question from the arena of politics.
But this is clearly impossible. 1t VIII contin-
ne tn agitate the public until it is definitely sci
tied at the ballot box. The opinion of court
can no more make men think alike on that OF
any other subject than it can make Them look
T alike. 1t was one of the despOlic yagaries Of
Henry the sth, To have AN net Of Parliament
passed Ia abolish all diversity of opinion Act
of April 1883.
| With far more truth has ii been said that on
E opinion. whatever it might be. should defend II
D self. Exactly so-that will be rs late. !
= should be such as after the ex~eitezaf4-of thl
: hour has passed away. and the prd>571e Of tn
moment has been lifted from -k%sw 'sobe
4 second thought ~ we'll as thatof the pnbll
); will approve.
p II is proper to add what was announced ii
the outset, that The details Of the law are not be-
il fore as; and this opinion is not to be regarded
as covering the search and seizure elase. 1t !
confined wholly to the question before us-th
power of the Legislature to restrain the sale an
use.
l am, therefore, of opinion that i was com
d petcnt for the Legislature to restrain the use ant
lie sale of intoxicating liquor. But that So muc'
of the act "a relates To the manufacture an
agency are unconstitutional anu Nuld vet 4 I'll
not put it on the ground assumed by Judg
n Perkins.
he What the practical effect of this ruling vii
). be rs not for me to say. The intent with whic
d the liquor was cold in each particular cas-
lie whether as incident to the right n manufactui
or Otherwise, will always be a question for III
>. jury. 1t presents similar difficulties to those i
Brown IS. Maryland, II Wheat 4i9. II
ne ourts will have to settle it On analogous prir
u ciples.
The case for manufacturing should be reyer
at ed and Beebee discharged on the merits.
st The conviction for selling is right. but II
II record and return being detective should. f
he that reason only. be reversed also.