The Birmingham age-herald., 1919-11-09
Dry Conflscation Act lsI As Strong As Gibraltar
Supreme Court Vigorously Uphods Measure Relating to Confiscating Real Property Used in the Manufacture
 of Prohibited Beverages in Alabama

does not violate the state or federal con stitutional provisions as to due process
 of law or equal protection of the law
 It provides for notice to the owner or
 claimant of the property or premises
 sought to be condemned or eonfscated,
 and affords an opportunity to be heard.
 It further provides for a judicial deter
 mination of all questions necessary to
 show a forfeiture of the rights to the
 property in consequence of it's being used
 in violation of law, so as to constitute 1t
 nuisance or contraband. Such notice,
 hearing and judicial proceedings being
 provided for in a court of equity. and whieh is properly an equitable proceed
 ing. there is no violation of any of these constitutional provisions as to due pro-. cess of law or equal protection of the law. If a jury trial is ever awarded i'll such or similar proceedings, it is in such cases matter of legislative force and
 not of constitutional right. Statutes like the one in question must of course conform to constitutional pro visions intended to secure to the owner of property due process of law. Similar statutes have been declared unconstl- tutional because they denied to the own CT of the property the right to be heard or to show that his property was not used as nuisance as to become contra
 band See Hilbert vs the People, Mich.
 
 | (Mass) 1, S. C.. 61 Am. Dec. SSl; Jones vs.
 Root, Gray (Mass.) 4S5.
 "The act in question, however, seems not to be invalidated by the defects pointed out in any of those cases, ana certainly not by any pornred out by the
 demurrers to this bill, which. of course
 are the only ones we are now consloer- ing or passing upon.
 "The extent or quantity of premises, or land which may be declared to be nuisance and abated, forfeited and con fiscated under this statute. when part only is being used in violation Of the law, is not now before us. Some other question as to the validity of the statute and proceedings are argued, but they are not properly before us for decision. The opinion did not rule upon the right of the state, under the Shaw bill, to selze and sell a farm fn Alabama, when dis tillery is found upon it. It is made clear that such matter is not before the court. Continuing, the decision said:
 What was said by this court in con struing the Fuller and Carmichael bilis W hich contained somewhat similar pro- visions as are found in this tthe ShaW bilD are apt so far as any question ol law is not raised by the demurers to this bill. The legislature has the power to regulate or to absolutely pro 1 hibit the manufacture, sale or other dls- positions of intoxicating liquors within the state and may declare a place Kept
 or maintained for such purpose to De common nuisance. These acts are not m valid as depriving a citizen Of a right to l trial by jury. nor as a legislative attempt 1 to enforce criminal law by civil actions l The states police powers extend 10 ] searches and seizures and to a destruc l tion of property which is the subject or a crime or the means of perpetrating iti 1 hence, the Fuller and Carmichael acts are not unconstitutional as in effect au- thorizing a taking of private property ! for nublic use without compensation. as such constitutional provision does not pre- vent proper provisions for the forfeiture and confiscation of property used 10 | commit crime.-Fulton vs. State, I'll Ala bama, 573. . 1 Ut results that there was no error III overruiing the demurrer to the bill. ana
 the decree appealed from Is Tn all things | affirmed"
 l The opinion was concurred in by JUS tices Anderson, Somerville and Thomas.