Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1903-11-19
Supreme Court Considering An
other Feature of the Yer
mont License Law.
NO MAXIMUM PENALTY
Attorneys for the Rcspondcnr IN Case
against ConStaBtino Claim That Part
of Liquor Law Is Inconstitu-
tionai-l'inc for Keeping
Liquor Excessive.

now III force was again under discussion
in supreme court tins afternoon when the
caledonia county case of State vs. g.
Constantine was reached. At the June
term of Caledonia county court the re-
spondcut was indicted fui Keeping and
exposing for sale intoxicating liquor at
HardWick May - last. In justice court
he was nued $500. When the case reached
county court counsel for the respondent
demurred to the indictment on the ground
that the law under which he is indicted
is unconstitutional. The demurrer was
overruled pro fOrma and the case cam"
to supreme court on the respondents cN-
CeptionS.
Dutton of l1ardwick who represented tho
respondent argued the case in his behalf
Unlike the Orleans county case heard on
Wednesday. counsel for the respondent
did not claim that if section Is of tn"
license law to which they objected because
it fixed no maximum penalty for ofGensrs
against the law was void. the whole act
must fall but they argued that there Is
no legal objection to holding part of am
act constitutional and a part unconstitu-
tional.
ARGt MENTS FOR RESPONDENT
The arguments for the respondent were
made the grounds that section 6N
should be declared void as forbidden by
the constitution because the LcGlSlitUrr
of 1902 failed to keep within its constitute
tional limit in passing this section with
ion putting limit upon the cNtcut OF the
line to be impose d. They also argued that
the complaint under which the rcspou-
dent was indicted was insufficient and
uncertain Among the points made uy
counsel for the respondent in their briefs
were the following.
Section 3! of chapter two of the con-
stitution of Vermont says:
And all fines shall be proportioued to
the offences"
Article eight of the amendments to the
constitution of the United States SaNs:
Excessive bail shall not bc required.
nor excessive fines imposed. nor cruel and
unusual punishment inflicted
the act under which this complaint l.
made is ir the laws of l'02, entitled An
act to regulate the traffic in intoxicating
liquors.
Section GS of said act says:
The fine shall be not less than $500 or
Imprisonment not less than three nor
more Than twelve months.
The penalty imposed. if it is impriSuu-
ment. is limited, but if fine it is un-
limited
sections IS. 90. 20, g. "A. AN make the
penalty, If fine, unlimited.
Section - makes the fine not loss than
$50 nor more than 5000.
Section &c The fine is fixed at definite
sum for each offence.
Sections = and IS fix a definite sum.
Section II limits the fine az not loss than
$50 nor more than 500.
The legislature has failed to keep with
in its constitutional limit u tine passage
of section ~ of this act. iu NOT limiting
the extent of the punishment bv "a fine
Such an act is forbidden b> the cor
stitutiOn
Some Of the authorities say that n lcGi--
lature has not "A constitutional right to-
pass a law chat docs no, limit or nun
some restraint upon the courts
And we insist in this case that IL j.. p,
clear violation of the constitution to .l-
low the court to pass sentences AS il MAY,
under Section Is of the act i'm ,llo.tin,i
cam il no said that the l.ri-l,f,iro his
"A constitutional right to enact "A LAW.
giving a Justice OF the pe.r4 "a I.p,.1
right If he so desires to sentence. "a no.
spondent for life. for a single vinl,ti.n
of some police regulation Of tb, St.,.o
Thc laws Of his STAT I,i,,,. t n.o
Massage of the act now ilndor ronsi,l..,,,-
ton. limited the court i'm tixinp The s,.n-
tence and gave ia the conn g. viii. Iis-
erection, and the court always exercised
that discretion
II is not a crime to expose nonor If &c
moi a crime to keen it for 4al, if mon snlJ
J-ndcr INC old law if was =. ,rir,a ia l,,
Intoxicating liuIor with intent tn sell the
crime consisted in the inteni to do inc
art I-nde,, saction Is tho Infant is ,n-
Tal N,.n = ~ lag .rts-
IT "a uerson who keeps for sale" and this
ie moi = violation of the con,rnn,, lnv.
possession is nc act of sale.
Under the old law, on the first convic-
tior tba eantance vas moi more thon Sl,.
ana nnt lese than n
vermont statutes. section 1iG5. and nm.
dar .nction 4b37. cumulative sentences
yv.re limited i'm case Of Imprisonment
to three wears
Rut in The case at bar. under section IS
mi. respondent for simply Keeping not
for selling not for Keeping with intent +,
sell is sentenced to pay " iInc of 5000 auC
costs and if not pad hi Imprisonment
will exceed three years
II the law of lgE had left the penalty
where it was under the former law, s.
TO 500. the hnc would not have been ex
ccssiVe. And the court 50 Neid in case
of State vs. Hodgsou. 81 VI. l3i.
statute that fixes the minimum -
syoo and no limit for the maximum fo
thc offpnse that this respondent is convict
oil Of is so clearly excessive. that i
nal<os a clear violation of the constitu
tion
rho Magma Charta saws "A freeman
wac not to be amcrccd for small fault
but according to the degree of the fault
Our courts have said that the consti
,ntior contcmplatcs that courts shoul
hove the right under a statute. in passing
sentences. to oonsider the respondent
ability TO pay But under inns act "
are now discussing me 'ouTt can may
na,,
Ne are aware that some courts hay