Perth Amboy evening news., 1922-02-02
State Enforcement Act
Set Aside By Errors Court
By Vote Of Eight To our

es Il degree OF punishment which can
only be mcted out in cases where q
person is indicted and tried by Jury.
1t will he recalled that the pros
vision of law fixes the offense as one
on disorderiy conduct and not
crime for which Indictment must be /
found ami the accused tried bys}
twelve o. lis peers. The chancellurd
holds, apparently. that the Van Ness
law vests the jurisdiction of these
cases in a magistrates court with~
out a jury in court of higher jur1
isdietion.
There are two classes of offensdI
under our law" said the chancel-
lor's opinion. lone triable by a Jury|
only and the other by magistratej
without jury. As to existing OIL
fenses the line of demarcation iSl
known because the law places thenll
in one or the other category, anfj
this quite irrespective of penaltie3l
denounced. When. however, neW1
offense is created by statute it must
inherently. and of its own naturf,j
fall within one or other and th0l
question always is, which one. Thel
constitution provides that the right1
of trial by jury shall remain invio-l
late.
Therefore, if the punishment dc~3
nounced is greater than that which
could have been imposed upon con1'
viction by a magistrate without ~
jury at the time of adoption of cons
stitution. it can be imposed now
| only upon the verdict of a L.
! cause it could not then have been
! imposed without it, and il falls pcr<
Sorce into the class of cases triabia'
by jury. Therefore. it clearly appears
as the punishment meted cut to the
defendants is greater than allows
able by the constitution on a convic-|
ton by q magistrate without a jury,
that the judgement must be revcrs-
ed. as the statute which authorized
l. is unconstitutional in that regard
The opinion of Supreme Corrd
Justice Gummere dWelt mainly witltl
the difference in the Volstead an II
Van Ness acts as to the nature & "a
the offense of manufacturing ri
selling or possessing intoxica Tin II
beverages. The chief Justice poin n
out that the Van Ness act is irlvaiss 4
in that it is not in harmony wit
the federal law because the lated
defines the offense as "crime' andd
the New Jersey law says it's .'dsa
orderly" act
The vote to uphold the Van Ness
law az follows:
TO reverse-Chancellor Wallspr.
Chief Justice Gummere, JUSTICES
Swayzc, Kalisch, Katzenbach, and
Lay Judges White and Williams.
Not recorded-Lay Judge Heppen-
heimer.
The three remaining Justices Min~
turn, Trenchard and Bergen sat inl
the supreme court and held the actl
valid.
1t was from this ruling that the1
errors court dissented.
Thus this afternoon there IS no
prohibition enforcement law in New
jersey. The Anti-Saloon League
forced it through the overwhelming-
ly Republican legislature Of 132l.ltl
having been introduced for that orr
ganization by Mrs. Jennie G. Van1
Ness, of Essex county. The deeision]
of the court of highest power in the
state today means that the present
legislature must immediately getl
busy with the drafting of a new
measure to take the place of the
one now held to be invalid. This
means that another real wet and
.'dry"fight is in the ohing for tho
lawmakers and the prospectlva
|, short and snappy" session of the
legislature may result in spro-
longed and troublesome" one Tor
the politicians.
Several of the judges who voted TO
reverse did so upon the decision OF
Chief Justice Gummere, the othef
concurring with the chancellors
reasons There were four preliminary
questions decided by the court be-
fore its vote on the act as awhole.
.I,t- ,F Xpl n OF haf. III