The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1876-06-17
THE LAGER BEER CASE.
Right Of Trial by Jury.

Right OF Trial by Jury.
Editor Rutland Globe Upon reading
in the columns of TIE GLOBE OF the 14th
instant the argument of Mr.. Baker, as to
trial by jury 10 cases of seizure of intoxicat-
ing liquors under section 22, chapter "a,
general statutes, and its able answer, /
felt sure that in view of the latter the argu-
ment Of Mr. Baker must fall dead to every
candid reader. But it will be permitted,
doubtless, to the state pride of one of the
youngest members Of the bar, who believes
that nowhere are laws better, or better adj
miniatered to punish, even after death, so
great a libel on the laws of the state.
By which ! mean this, and think every
one who has long been citizen or denizen
of Rutland will understand, that outside
the exact definition of the laws, there is no
real guaranty against the mal-administra-
ton of them except the trial by jury. AS
singles instance, the exclusive juris-
diction of justices of the peace OF civil
actions when the matter in demand does
not exceed ten dollars. Given periured
plaintiff and a perjured Justice
no great stretch of the Imagination
in thsac days--and what mischief might
not occur but for this one sslutary checkp
And do not see any particular reason
| why IL might not come about that the Off
Ger in the service of process under the
above named section, should seize barrels
Of kerosene oil or OF potatoes, If it be true
as Mr. Baker urges that this process is 80
purely unique and SUI generis, so neither
civil nor criminal, that single justice of
the peace Ia only required TO find
by fair (D balance of proof that
the property seized is intoxicat
| ing liquor If the above seems over
drawn to the general reader It certainly
will not 10 the experienced in such affairs,
who will readily see that if the law were
| 10 receive Mr.. Bakers construction there
would soon he no law Of "precedents,' and
The inevitable result of such construction
is not only to characterize the late jury
trial as a farce" but the legislators aud
| Judiciary Of the state for the last twenty
| tive years us "poor players"
|
the statute referred TO is in close analogy
to Sects. ii and 10 of Chap. 81, relative to
the seizure If stolen goods. Indeed, it is
| PLAN that this ia the model on which this
section Of the liquor law was fastened to
even the most casual reader. In the case
of stolen goods the warrant issues on the
sworn complaint of one, the goods and
persons suspected are brought together be-
fore the justice and the determination that
| the property is stolen is virtual convc-
lion OF the prisoner. Under this section
Of the liquor law the justice is fortified in
the issuing Of the warrant, by the oaths of
three persons, the warrant issues against
both person and property and the con-
demnaiion of the property is virtually a
conviction of the claimant.
In the language of Chancellor Bennett,
Gan adjudication of forfeiture of liquor
must be grounded upon the keeping Nth
iatent 10 sell, for it is the intent to sell that
stamps the character of illegality upon the
| ker ping
Now TO argue that this process, 80 high
| ly penal, likely to result not only in the
condemnation of the property, but practl-
callY the conviction of the claimant--be-
fore the amendment of 1853 this resulted
withou, other pr9cess-is not suit, seems
to me, 10 do az great violence to legal Ian
guage as to contend that the process for
the recovery of stolen goods and the con-
yictlon of the felon is not suit because
process issues in part against the property.
Indeed 1t will be remembered that while
in the caee Of State q. Prescott, in 1866, the
constututonslity of this section Chen the
IL h. was drawn in question, aud it was
urged that the statute practically brought
about ~ once 2 forfeiture of the liquor and
conviction of the claimant on mere off.
GERS return without further trial (nol
vCry different from tho r"Ti'i- - A.. D~-~.
(akesJ il was replied that such construc.
ton was monstrous, or in the language
of the same well known judge, and friend
of prohibition ct would be somewha,
remarkable If an enlightened legislature al
the present day should pass a law with ar
intention to have liquors adjudged forfeit
ed by a judicial tribunal, and ordered de-
stroyed without a trial and ioithout positigt
prOCf That they 'oere intended FIR sale con-
tray to lac. And we apprehend the stat.
ute does not require us to put the Legislature
who passed the act in as awkward a diem
ma"
But not to extend the wordy warfare
further (for such combats are usually end
less it will be clear, think, to every rea
sonlng mind that Mr.. Baker has taken NJ
friendly ground either to the cause of tenn
perance or good order. For if the position
he has taken is the true one, the inevitable
result is that the statute is in direct an
tsgonism at every point with the coDstitu
ton Of the state, the very position always
taken by the worst enemies of the law
The question whether the property seizeC
is Intoxicating liquors is certainly one o
fact and eminently proper for jury tc
Try, and to my mind the grand juror, IL
conducting the late trial as he did, is de
serving of the applause of the friends o.
prohibition rather than his critic.
p. REDFIELD KENDALL.