Buchanan County bulletin. [volume] (Independence, Iowa) 1869-1891, 1871-02-17

The Beer Law.
EDITOR BULLETIN:-Thep proceed
ings had, and the assertions made,
upon the first trial under the beer
and wine law, held in this city on
the 9Th inst, were in many respects
so remarkable and exceptional, and
the representations made by unscru-
pulous attorneys so well calculated
to mislead the public mind concern
ing the acts of public servants and
of the publishers Of our newspapers,
in connection with the adoption of
the law by the voters of Buchanan
county, that a consideration of the
subject, in its several bearings,
seems in order and called for by the
public interests. canno hope to
bring to the task the ability of a
well-read and clear-headed lawyer,
nor do wish to be regarded as as
suming the role of a judge of the
Supreme Court, (the trial referred
to has already given the public a
nausea of this kind of by-play), but
desire simply to state facts as they
exist, and to deduce such conclusions
theretrom as seem clearly to indi-
cate to my own mind, and may pos
sibly &C nvipce others that the beer
law was not only legally adopted,
but that in all the proceedings con-
nected with it's adoption, the re-
quirements of Chapter 80, Acts of
18th General Assembly, were strict
ly complied with.
1t was to be expected that the
parties interested in the sale of beer
and wine would endeavor to secure
notification Of the law, but it was
hardly to be supposed that any law
yer,ofpretended responsibility could
be found to SO degrade the true dig
nifty Of his profession as to make
use of falsehood, abuse and slang,
for the purpose of inducing jury
to assume responsibilities which
could not properly attach to them,
and to pursue a course, which, if its
propriety were unquestionable, wo'd
inevitably lead to confusion in our
courts, uncertainty in the public
mind with regard to the validity of
the law, and a consequent practical
notification of the will of the peo-
pie in adopting it. For if one jury
shall say that the law has been
properly adopted by the people of
our County and is valid, and another
that it has not been properly adopt
ed and is not valid, what assurance
can there be that justice will be
done either to plaintiffs or defend
ants? The law in that case becomes
a mere weathercock, veering with
every wind that blows. Were it
possible to appeal from the decision
of a jury against the State, remedy
m ght be found in the Supreme
Court, but such is not the case.
Appeal from the decision of the jury
cannot be taken by the State, while
it may by the defendant. Appeal
may be had by the State on excep-
tons taken to the rulings by the
Justice; but when the rulings of the
Justice are such that no exceptions
can be legally taken, even this poor
recourse fails the State. Thus, so
long as juries can be persuaded by
pettifogging lawyers to assume ju-
over the laws themselves,
rather than to decide upon the guilt
or innocence of the accused, by tie
lar and the eridence, as is their le-
ultimate province, so long may the
will of the people manifested in the
adoption of the law, be utterly
thwarted.
In view of these facts is it not
manifestly improper for a jury to
coolly decide upon the validity or
constitutionality of law, rather
than upon the guilt or innocence of
the accused under the law? Now
to the case in hand.
On the 9th of January quantity
of beer and wine was seized in the
saloon of Adolph Leytze, in this city,
by the officers of the law, in the
prescribed by law. Under
our statutes the justice is required,
when liquors are seized, to notify
the owner or keeper of the saloon
where the liquors were seized, and
all others whom it may concern, to
appear on given day, "and show
cause, if any they have, why said
liquors, together with the vessels in
which the same is contained, should
not be forfeited" If any persons
so appear, they become parties de-
PENDANT in the case, and the trial is
to be conducted substantially as in
a case of misdemeanor. In the case
under consideration, all the prelim-
mary steps were in due form, and
Mr.. Leytze appeared and claimed
the liquors and Mr.. Wingert the
kegs. The law makes the finding
of the liquor in the possession of the
accused in saloon or other place
of public resort, pre- sumptire eyi-
dence that the same was kept or held
for sale contrary to law. That is,
if it be proved on trial that the liq-
ors were seized in such a place, the
justice or jury must decide them to
be forfeited unless the defendants
overcome the presumption by posi-
tive evidence that the liquors were
not kept for sale contrary to law.
In this case no such defense was set
up-no attempt was made to prove
that the liquors were not kept for
sale contrary to the law. Hence
there could be no question as to the
guilt of the defendants under the
law. Indeed certain of the Jurors
have asserted that there was no
question on this point, but that they
found the accused innocent on tie
ground that the lasc itself acas in
rulid.
The Supreme Court of our State,
in discussing the constitutionality
of laws, seem to use the terms Gin
valid" and Unconstitutional" sy-
anonymously, for in referring to the
same question in different sections
- Al,