New-York daily tribune., 1856-03-28

70 selI-all that will not help the Court in the
least. since they themselves admit right Of regu-
ston in matters of trade within which all the pro-
visions of the law they have undertaken to nullfy
fully and distinctly come "It is certain. say the
Court, that the Legislature cannot totally ami
4" hilate commerce in any species of properly, and
so condemn the property itself to extinction.
is equaLy certain that the Legislature can regulate
{" trad, in property Of all kinds. Neither of these
propositions is denied; but they necessarily lead
I" to another-that between regulation and destruc-
{" tion there is somewhere, however difficult
L" to define with precision; line of separation y
And again at the close of their opinion
at is scarcely necessary, perhaps, to observe that
"in the views which have been expressed, 1t IS not
intended to Maroon The field Of Legislature discretion,
sin regulating and controlling the tradis in intOr'eat
"ing liquors We only say that, in all such egis
"lation, the essential right of the citizen to his
"property must be preseryed-a right which in
cludes the porer Of dispositions and sale, to BE- srer-
cised nnder such restraints as just regard both
"to the public good and private rights, may sug-
"gest" Very well; that is all that is needed to
sustain the law which the majority of the Court OF
Appeals affected, as it would seem, with that ju-
dicial blindness which seems to be getting alarm
iDgly epidenic-has so unceremonously under
taken to nulfy though, instead of being judges,
they were tribunes Of the people, with right to
veto laws which did not meet their ideas of expe-
diency.
Does the law for the prevention of intemperance,
rauperism and crime attempt to destroy the trade
in liquors No such thing. 1t expressly provides
for their being sold for sacramental, medicinal,
chemical and mechanical purpOses-the Only pur-
poses for which, in the judgment of the Legisla-
ture, they can be benefcislly used That law only
prohibits their sale for use as beverage-an au-
thority which, to a greater or less extent, the
Legislature has always exercised from very
early period. As Judge johnson remarks in
his able opinion sustaining the constitu'
tionality of the law, so far has the
principle of prohibition and restriction been
carried in this branch of traffic that probably not
one person in FIVE hundred ever had in this State
the right to sell glass of sprituOus liquor, or any
other quantity below FIVE gallons, to any person or
for any purpose. The Prohibitory law differs only
from the previous excise laws in extending to
wholesale dealers prohibition long in existence as
TO retail dealers, and admitted by the Court of
Appeals to be perfectly constitutional in ts appi-
cation to the latter and in reinforcing that prohibit
ton, by subjecting liquors kept to be sold in viola
ton of its provisions to seizure and confscatiOn
BY due process of law.
The majority of the Court of Appeals have placed
themselves in dilemma, upon one horn or the
other of which they must be gored. Ii the Legis-
lature have the right as the Court seems expressly
to admit, TO regulate trade according TO the Legis
lature's view of the interests of the publc-then,
in spite of all the augmentation about the consti
tutional sanctity of property and of the right TO
sell as the essence OF prOperty-the law for the
suppression of intemperance, pauperism and
crime is constitutional for after all said
and done, it is only an act to regulate
the trade in liquors. IT, on the other
hand the right of selling is an essential part of the
right of property, which the Legislature cannot
touch as the Court in stating the grounds of their
decision, seem to maintain, then is not only this
law, but all previous laws restraining the trade in
liquors, unconstitutional and, for that matter half
the laws on our statute. .book-the Legislature be-
ing thus stripped Of all the power it has been sup
posed to possess to protect the community against
the traffic in articles of pernicious character
What does the Court of Appeals think of laws
prohibiting the sale Of unwholesome meats and
other articles Of food and authorizing their seizure
and destruction What does it think Of the like
proceedings in the case of obscene books and
prints What does it think of thu seizure and
destruction of the property of gamblers and
ounterfeiters-merely on the ground that the
Legislature does not approve the particular use to
which this property put by its owners They
have favored US with their opinion upon several
other points much less germane to the matter.
How happens it that they have never word to say
upon these ?
1t is apt to happen in the matter OF Judicial
opinions so far as relates TO the aequesence of
the public in them, that voices weighed, not
counted. Strained constructions distinctions where
no difference exists, shallow sophistries and papa-
bic self-cOdtradictOn, do not any the less become
such, do not lose anything of their inherent de-
formity and weakness by being displayed from the
bench. The opinion of the majority of the Court,
taken in connection with the plain, straightfor-
ward common sense views maintained by the dis
senting judges, will do the cause Of prohibition
grest deal of more good than Of harm, though we
are sorry to see that good attained at such an
expense to the public respect which our
Court of Appeals ought to command
II such be al that can be said sganst the right Of
the Legislature TO put stop to the sale of liquor