Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1902-01-13
LIQUOR SEIZURE ACT
It, Constltutlonality Passed
Upon by the Su-
prem Court.
SHERIFF HAS THE RIGHT TO
SEIZE AND HOLD
LIQUORS
Which Are Being Kept for Illegal
Sale, and Can Not Be Released
Till Court Authorizes.
COURTS OPINION IN FULL

Mr.. Justice Battle delivered the
opinion of the supreme court in the
case of ]. R. Ferguson, ct al, VS..
Joesy & Ward. 1t will be of interest,
as it touches upon the constitutional
ity Of the act of February 13, 1899,
entitled An act to suppress the lie
gal sale of liquors, and to destroy the
same when found in prohibited dis
tricts.''
In his opinion Justice Battle said:
"Appellees insist that so much of this
act as authorizes a search is III viola
ton of the constitution, and is 9cil,
when construed as whole, does not
follow that the whole of the act is
.o'd. For it is evident that the act,
when construed as a whole, does not
intend that the search provided for
shall be condition precedent to the
right to seize and destroy the liquors
described. The act makes it tEe duty
of certain officers, on conditions yam.
I'd, to issue w.',ant, directe. to
some Lsace officer, directing in surn
warrant a search for such intoli -
ing 'cuors, specifying in such VIZ.
rant the place to o" searched. and Iii
recting such offer, on finding anv
sur', liquors in a.: prohibited si:,-
;rict. to publicly ,'icJ the SAM. Is
this Dart of the act constitutionals
Statutes which authorize the seiz-
ure of intoxicating liquors, when III
gally kept for sale. :lndcr warrants is
sued for that purpose, and their for,
feiture or destruction when it shall be
established that the liquors seized
were illegally kept for sale, after ne
tice to and hearing of claimants, have
generally been upheld and sustained
as constitutional.
After making it the duty of certain
officers to issue warrants directing the
search for and seizure of liquors kept
in any prohibited district, to be sold
cotnrary to law, the act provides that
any person on whose premises or in
whose custody any such liquor may
be found, under warrant of this act.
shall be entitled to his day in court
before said property shall be destroy
ed This clearly means that the own
er of such liquor shall be entitled to a
fair and legal trial, with all the usual
incidents thereto, for the purpose of
ascertaining and determining whether
his property has been forfeited, before
it shall be destroyed; that is, he or
his agent in legal custody shall have
notice of the charge of the guilty
purpose upon which his property is
declared to be unlawfully held, time
and opportunity to meet the witnesses
against him, face to face, and the
benefit of the legal presumption of
innoncence. Without these privileges
day in court might be of little value.
and it is not to be presumed that the
act intends that the day in court
should be useless or worthless priv
ilege or right or an idle ceremony or
force.
SO much, therefore, of the first sec
seizure and destruction of liquor kept
in a prohibited district, to be sold con
trary to law, without that part which
authorizes search. is constitutional.
This being true, and the liquor in
question being subject to seizure and
destruction because it was kept to be
sold contrary to law and is still being
held by the sheriff, to be disposed Of
according to law. the owners of it arc
not entitled to the release or value of
it, because it was made by search
made for it by authority of warrant
issued for that purpose. The law i'm
poses the forfeiture and destruction
of it as a punishment for keeping it
for an unlawful purpose, and it stands
in an attitude like that Of criminal