Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1886-02-26

issued, Of something which II Jaw has
DECLARED subject 10 seizure and o1,demna-
tWn, under the police power dt -gated by
the constitution, rs an lnstlum intend
ed by the owner or pOssessUr for II use un-
lawful by eXpres, statute, and dangerous
to the peace, health and good morals of
the community. That the article in USef
may be lnnOcuOus, may be the subject of
lawful ownership or may even he sus-
ceptible of beneficial use, can no more
affect the question than could the fact that
certain tools were susceptible of lawful
beneficial use in mechanics save them
from becoming subipctto seizure and con-
fiscation If Intended by their owner or pos
SCISSOR for use as the Instruments tor ac-
compliahing contemplated burglary or
the harmless character of the metal and
its owners right of property therein to
protect his ownership when fashioned and
Intended for passing as counterfeit coin
1t cannot be doubted in this State since
the case of Spaulding VS. Preston, 81 Vt,
y, and has not been elsewhere, so far as
we are aware, that articles or instrument
talltles once impressed with the character
istics of ddGptutiOu and iHtCutlcd use for
| purposes prohibited by law and contrary
to the public peace, health or morals, are
suoJect TO summary seizure under statu-
| tory, or even general police regulatiOns
! That the liquors in question were intend
| ed for such use has been determined IN
this case as a question Of fact hy the tri-
bunal designated by law, and that adiudi-
| cation Is conclusive.
| The scope and application Of art }. part
/, of the Constitution have been defined
| by THIS court in the cases above referred
| to, and in IN re Powers, % Vt, POO which
has ever since been regarded rs conclu-
slve against such application Of that sec
! tlon OF the pill of rights as Is here CON
! tended for by the claimant. See Gill VS.
| Parker 81 Vt, go; state vs.. Jefferson. Al
! Vt, 5O4 state vs. lutOX Liq., s. Vt. 81
In Massachusetts statute practically
! identical with the one in question has
| been held not to ntritNcne Il similar con-
stitutiOnal provIsiun Jones vs. Root. &
| Gray, 49,: Mason ". Ltthrop, Frav 354
| The decisions in Maine are to the same
| effect state VS.. McCann, 80 Ne 3S3:
State VS.. Hatley, 60 Me-. 100
Ill Concerning the claim tnat Sec.
of the federal constitution. conferrnr up-
on Congress the exclusive right to regil-
late commerce between the States has
application, it is sufficient to say that no
regulation of, ur interference with utter
state commerce is attempted If an eX-
press company, or any other carrier or
person, natural or CORPORATE, has in DOS
session within this state an article in it.
self dangerous to the community. or an
article intended for unlawful or criminal
use within the State, it is a necessary IN
Cident of the police powers of the State
that such article should be subject to
seizure for the protection OF the com
munity. 1t would certainly be A strange
perVerSlOn of language to claim that If
tins express company were to hold in DOS
session within this State clothing infected
with the small poN or yellow fever
or tools with which it was intended
TO commit burglary. the State roy-
erument should be poWerless to protect
, its citizens by seiZing and rendering
harmless such articles simply because
they might have been brought in
the ordinary course of business from an
other state If the express colnDany has
| in possession within the state liulor. nth
, intent to maize ultlulrfH use or diSDOSi-
Of it, then the right to seize it and prevent
such unlawful use attaches III were
competent for persons or companies to be-
come superior to State laws and police
, regulations, and to override and dcfv
them under the shield of the federal con
stitution simply bv means of condnctinp
an Interstate traffice. ii would indeed he
5 strange and deulorahle condition of
things. The right of the States to rom