Year: 1875

IEMfEkANCE NUlESs


By far the most engrossng subject
continues to be the action of the Grand
Jury, which is to meet on Monday week
next, 18th instant, and in view of the
action of the Hartford Grand Jury very
many persons-in fact, we believe the
majority-incline to the opinion that the
Grand Jury of this county will not act
differently from that of our sister coun-
ty. In the mean time the legal aspects
of the case are discussed freely, and it
is the opinion of many gentlemen learn
stand n constitutional test, and that
whether it be declared unconstitutional
by the Circuit Court or sustained by it,
that it is likely to be tested before the
Court of Appeals. In brief, the ground
taken against the law from q legal point
of view, is D it invests the Grand
Jury with powers that are foreign to its
nature and spirit; and as an inquisi-
torial institution the business of Grand
Jury is not to decide cases, or exercise
executive powers--to determine who are,
or who are not proper persons to have
license granted them. The body holds
its sessions i'll secret, makes up its judg-
ment on eX parte evidence, and its action
is only preliminary to legal investiga
ton and trial in open court by the
established forms Of law. (2) The ac-
tion of the Grand Jury, under the law
about to be put in operation, applies
only to the Clerk in compelling him to
grant or withhold license to sell spirit
uous liquors, and the law extends no
further. The license law may still be
in force, and the action of the Grand
Jury which estops the issuing of IL
censes by the Clerk, which is in effect
an abrogation of the license laws in
reference to the sale of liquor, goes no
further, and the applicant for license
may fall back upon his rights under the
common law to sell without license
from the State that having been with
held through no fault of his.


These are some of the legal views
briefly pointed out, which are entertain
ed, respecting the constitutionality of
the law The Clerk having been ap-
piled to for a liquor license and having
refused to grant the same, the appli-
cant can get his case before the Court,
without delay, by writ of mandamus,
as readily as habeas corpus is brought
up; and when the Court has heard the
argument of counsel and considered the
case if the Judge decides in favor of
the plaintiff he may proceed to sell, and
the States remedy will be an appeal to
the higher Court If, however, judg-
ment should be in favor of the law, then
the complainant can take an appeal, and
if lie chooses to take the risk, continue
to sell liquor till the Court of Appeals
decides the question.


The excitement created by the pres
ent discussion Of the temperance ques-
ton, has developed one remarkable
phase of the subject, not before mani
fest; which is that almost every person
who expresses an opinion on the sub
ject favors total prohibition; some on
the ground Of treating all alike, which,
as Rev. H. A. Skinner, in his article on
the subject, published last week, show
ed to be an entirely erroneous view of
the subject; the object of the law, and
the clear duty of the public, being to
determine what is the public interest,
not what advantages or special prerog
atives individuals may enjoy.


Public opinion having developed itself
in favor of a very great restriction,
even bordering on prohibition of the
traffic in spirituous liquors, the proba-
bility is that the County Court will sus-
tain it, which will place the burthep of
taking the case to the Court of Appeals
upon the seller, which is an expensive
and risky business that not many will
care to try