Herald and news. [volume] (West Randolph, Vt.) 1878-1943, 1903-11-19
lsn coNsIITuTIoNAL7

volving the validity OF the new license
liquor law. The points raised are not
mere lawyers bubbles, but deserve
public attention, not only for Their
possible bearing on the law we have
but as a guide for the avoidance OF err
ror, or the risk of error, by future law
making bodies.
One of the cases comes from Orange
county-that OF State V. Hazelton, q
resident of Bradford, convicted of sell
ing liquor without license, and who
excepted to the pro lorna rulings OF
the lower court as to the legal points
raised by his counsel.
The drift of respondents argument
before the supreme court was this:-
The object of this law is the regula-
ton of the liquor traffic so as to limit
its evils TO the uttermost; hence, ii any
of its provisions are not necessary and
proper to effeetuate that object they
cannot be sustained as a valid exercise
of the police power. The exemption
OF sales by the barrel by farmers who
raise sufficient apples to make the
cider which they sell is void, as class
legislation. There is no reason why
farmers should be given privileges
with respect to handling a dangerous
commodity which are denied to others.
No provision is made for excluding
farmers OF bad character from selling
cider, nor is there any way whereby
the privilege may be withdrawn in in
dividual cases, il it is abused.
The part of Sec. p which permits
sales of wines and cider made in this
state is clearly unconstitutional, as a
discrimination against the products Of
other states. Interstate commerce can
be regulated only by Congress.
The respondent claimed that if these
parts are invalid, the entire act is void,
upon the familiar principle that if the
invalid parts OF a law form any induce
ment to its adoption the whole act
must fall. 1t was urged that this &C.
owes Its presen; force to the tact that
a majority of only 729 out of a total
vote of S., 693 so voted-that change
of two votes in each town and city in
the state would have altered the re-
suit. 1t was claimed that the cider ex-
emption alone must have influenced
enough farmers to ensure the taking
effect Of the law.
Counsel for the state argued in
answer on the broad ground that
neither the federal government nor the
state recognized the inherent right of
individuals to deal in intoxicating
liquor; that it was harmful and dan
gerous traffic that could even be pro-
hibited altogether without infringing |
individual rights; therefore. any cur
tailment in a minor degree could not
serve as ground for just complaint.
As to the referendum, it was urged |
that the question submitted was not
the wisdom of the law itself, but sim
ply the time when it should 60 into
effect; also, the court was not expect
ed to guess how the inclusion of the
cider clause affected the vote. one way |
or the other
In case the decision should be adj |
verse to the respondent and the law
should be upheld, it is not unlikely
that the questions will be carried up
TO the United States supreme court.
The other case is one from Caledonia
county in which the point raised is
that in prescribing the penalties for
selling without a license the act fails to
place any maximum limit on the
amount of fine that a court may i'm
pose. The minimum is named as $500.
but above that it is discretionary with
he court. Here is a manifest loose
ness in construction that ought to be
but may not be considered
serious enough TO invalidate the whole
penalty clause, which would be equal
o voiding the act itself.