Litchfield enquirer., 1867-08-29
GEORGE A H1cKox, Esq, EDITOR OF THE
 LrTcHFIELD ENQUIRER:

| DEAR SIR:-By tho kindness of some person unknown to mo, I received last eve, through the mail, 8 copy of your paper of August s, containing leading editorial under the caption of PREFERENCE RE FORM"
 The first three-fourths of the article I pass by as having no special relation to me without, however, endorsing all its doc trines.
 With the last fourth I am chiefly con- cerned, and as my name appears, I claim & right to hearing ill reply.
 will first give the logic of the article in brief, accurately, and with neither ael1tuion nor diminution; and then, as plain English scholar, weigh the legal argument of the Lawyer Editor
 l ARGUMENT
 lst. Under the present law, ev- cry buyer of intoxicating liquor no matter ] for what use, is liable to prosecution equal ly with tho seller.
 2d. The Kind of his liability is as prin- l cipal ill the second degree, i. o., las aider or obe7o') Ill the crime of selling. 3d. He may be prosecuted with the seller as an accomplice.
 4th. He may be prosecuted separately, as an accomplice.
 9th. Every one who employs another to purchase liquor is equally responsible with his agent and with the seller. 6th Were the sale of liquor felony, he would be what is termed an accessory be- fore the fact but as it is only a misde meanor, that distinction is not made, and all are treated as principals. 7th. On third conviction of this offence, he could not escape several months impris- onment in the common jail. 9th. Hence, "the thorough enforcement of the law would bring about results not anticipated one of which would be, MT. Platt If prosecuted) would be sent to jail for little less than century, unless iuries extended the same favor to him they arc apt to extend to the liquor seller REPLY Thus your whole argument of eight prop ositions, turns upon the mere assumption in proposition 1st, that the detective so aids and abets the seller in his criminal act, that said detective becomes thereby particeps c,'imiais-an accomplice ill the crime
 Your eight propositions are as row of bricks standing on end with the largest and heaviest labeled No. 1, nearest to me, and if can topple that over, the rest will all fall in order To that assumption I 1 object.
 1st. N proues too much. 1 It is based upon this legal definition, PrincipM in Me second degree. "Those who were present aiding and abetting the com mission of the fact. They are generally termed aiders and abettors, sometimes i'm properly accomplices."
 The presence which is required in order to make a man a principal in the second | diate presence, such presence as would make him an eye and an car witness of what passes, but may be constructive presence It must be such as may be suf- ficient to afford aid or assistance to the principal in the first degree. Now this def milton applies in a1 is breaehh to all cases covered by it's language, or else it is re- stricted by certain statutes, or by certain principles of common law.
 The assumption upon which your argu- ment rests, gives 1t universal applica- tion.
 1 Very we'll: Now lot us test it. Upon that principle, the landlord who rents @ building for dram shop, the carpenter who builds bar, and tho merchant who sells tumbler for the sale of liquor, and the carman who halls tho barrels, the con- pany who expresses or freights them, and the day laborer who assists in storing them in the cellar, are each and all principals in the second degree.
 And. still applying tho principle-the lawyer who defends a seller before q Jus tice or Jury, and the Jury who will not convict in the presence of evidence suff- cient to convict, arc accessories after the fact. Every novice knows that not a Court in the land will recognize such construc- tion of law. Why? Because legal defni- tions are simply statements of legal prin- ciples, and legal principles are rarely if ev- CT unrestricted. In the case before us, the definition is restricted by principle of common law, viz:-Thoa e criminal intention must De proced ia order to prore crimsmolHy.
 Hence my second objection to your as- sumption is-That it is opposed by this principle of common law. The intention of tho detective is simply to furnish an oc- casion so that one who is in the attitude of a law-breaker, may, by certain act of criminality, expose himself to detection and punishment Suppose that you know that certain highwayman lies concealed