*1 618 IN THE SUPREME COURT. v. Williams.
State and was down same man- men, the track of one of run this track side of cart track ner. Had followed shoe within 100 defendant’s of shoes house; found yards pair mattress white, between and bed at Freeman’s George house— shoes, women’s of same stock of that had low-quarter goods been stolen. witness not swear The could positively they were his shoes. Then there was above evidence of the dog when she found and" smelt the track, following whining then shoe, the to attack the and shoe defendant, dog trying the track with it other fitting respects. corresponding Morris, Tracks are v. C., evidence. State 84 N. competent Reitz, State 83 N. 634. 756; C., v. The evidence was prop- submitted to with the offered erly jury, evidence together the defense. . No Error.
STATE v. JAKE WILLIAMS. (Filed 1908). April, Rights Property 1. Constitutional Process. —Due Law — land, The Constitution is the law of the the sense that no deprived rights by any depart- citizen can be his thereunder government. ment of the — Duty 2. Constitutional Law —Unconstitutional Statute Void Courts. void, An offense created unconstitutional statute is legal imprisonment; involving cannot be a cause of suits question duty -judgment it is the of the court to declare thereon. — Interpretation—-Presumption 3. Constitutional Law Statutes- — Validity Doubt. —Reasonable validity legislative presumed, enactment legislative court should never declare enactment unconstitu- attention, patient tional, except after careful deliberation only when, clearly so, judgment, in its it is be- and then so yond a reasonable doubt. TEE1T, SPBING 1908. N. 0.] Wileiajis. (cid:127), Spirituous Liquors Named Bill — —Indictment—Witnesses *2 Competency. bringing charged a with a violation of statute A defendant upon intoxicating liquors county into a certain he convicted testimony than those marked on the bill. of other witnesses — — Spirituous Liquors Sufficiency Separate Bill of —-indictment Suggested. Counts violating charging a A bill of indictment a defendant with by bringing county day, statute into a certain “on one certain to-wit, gallon, spirituous, more than one-half one vinous defective; fatally liquors,” be in bet- malt is not but it would keeping spirit ter with the letter and of the Constitution to more counts, particularly specify, separate the kind of consti- tuting the offense. Spirituous Liquors Property—Due Process—
6. Constitutional Law — — Police Powers. Spirituous, liquors property malt, or vinous within Constitution, meaning its sale is manufacture or lawfully by statute; prohibited and when the makes carry quantity a it an more than certain indictable offense prohibiting specified county, time, within a limited its sale use, authorizing prohibiting certain but its use for' and not taking property purposes, a' for that it is it is unconstitutional police power process law, of a without due and within State. Legislative Change Rule —When Unconsti-
7. Evidence — Powers — i, tutional. may generally change Legislatures evidence the rule of While they relating causes, effect cannot do so when the to the trial of right guaranteed deprive property is to the citizen of Constitution. indictment, heard motion to ACTION,
CRIMINAL upon quash Peebles, Court Term, 1907, Jat the Superior August of Bueice County. was called to to the bill
The defendant plead following indictment: That oaths,
“The for their State, jurors present: 10th Williams, Burke, Jake late on the day Lord thousand in the of our nine hundred July, year arms, with force and at and in afore- seven, the county COURT. IN TI-IE SUPREME v. Williams. into said have and did said, willfully bring unlawfully than one-half one certain day,.more gal- on Burlce, malt liquors, vinous lon, to-wit, spirituous, one gallon, Jake there the said then and brought the same not being nor delivery for medical purposes, Williams druggist, nor Broad- Deaf, for the at the nor the School State Hospital, in said county, oaks to Grace Sanatorium, Hospital, nor such form of the for medical purposes, against and -against peace dignity cases made provided, of the State.” Motion allowed. The Solici-
Defendant moved to quash. tor for the State appealed. *3 for State.
Attorney-General No counsel contra.- 1901, Public Laws 24, Legis- J. chapter By CoNNOK., for that shall unlawful
lature a statute enacted declaring of for or otherwise dispose sell finy “manufacture, person in of malt the county vinous or liquors gain” spirituous, The the usual exceptions regard Burke. act contains that neither the manu- sales It is also druggists. provided at the wines “nor sale of such wines facture of domestic not less than one of gallon” manufacture place quantities of any liquors brought prohibited. place delivery of sale. is declared deemed place into from Common carriers are liquors prohibited bringing 806, The statute amended chapter etc. county, end of section 1 the following: Laws at the 1907, by adding to a drug- “It shall unlawful any person, except be further into said aforesaid, for medical purposes, bring gist, more than one one-half Burke, day, vinous malt such or spirituous, liquors, every person conviction, be fined or shall, imprisoned' so offending motion to the bill discretion of the court.” The quash an 806 is chapter involves proposition indictment SPRING 0.] State v. with,
unwarranted interference with defendant’s property his it is violative of the liberty; Constitution, which declares that the inalienable of all men are “among rights life, of the fruits of their own liberty, enjoyment labor, the pursuit cannot be de- happiness,” they but the law land.” of the the Constitution prived “by That is “the law the in the sense that no land,” act of either of the department which violates its government provisions exceeds its can be powers enforced the citizen of his deprive life, is a fundamental truth. To liberty property, deny is to assert that constitutional government failure, liberty, law, has no regulated our place abiding political system. The Constitution is, as well as de- necessity, will clared and in no people, supreme law, proper, sense can act of legal either of the department govern- ment which violates its or exceeds the provisions dele- powers law. be the To- same gated state the proposition affirmatively, an which finds no in the Consti- support tution or is exercise therein power conferred imposes the citizen of no duty, deprives right subjects him to no This is “first penalty. principle,” recognition of which is essential to the liberty. preservation
“If Constitution the law an prescribes rule, and other and a different it is the rule, of the courts to de duty *4 clare the the and not the case Constitution, law, governs Curtis, J., them before v. Scott 19 judgment.” Sanford, 628. How.,
“An unconstitutional is void law and is as no law. An it is offense created not a A crime. conviction under is erroneous, but is and and merely illegal void cannot be cause of Ex legal imprisonment.” Sie Bradley, parte bold, 100 376. S., U.
“The limitations our imposed constitutional law upon the action of the both State and governments, National, essential to the and not- preservation private rights, TI-IE COURT. IN SUPREME
622
State v. in- of our character representative political withstanding J., U. Matthews, S., 110 Hurtado v. California, stitutions.” 356. and no one is not a it binds law;
“An unconstitutional Worthen, J., Field, 120 Huntington one.” protects 101. S.,U. bound enforce, to nor legally
“No court bound Constitution. an inconsistent with the to act of obey, Congress fun- as expressed the will of people In this country law must will of the courts legislatures.” be .the damental Baldwin, Harlan, J., S., 297. 165 U. Robertson v. have de- act, their organic “Whatever people, framing modes limits and the to be the of legislative power, clared be must exercised, always recog- shall be National, courts, obligatory.” nized Brewer, J., Minnesota, U. S., Stearns v. 179 241. to of the bar
It is the when called citizen, right demand that the court court, to to Constitution appeal charged the statute which he is violating declare whether value land.” To make this “the law of the right it must be the court citizen, duty protection To this to keep thereon. deny declare judgment make of none to the hope the ear break promise —to and not ours is a of law effect the declaration that government men. if the evil theory “It will for American day liberty law of finds land supreme outside of government No higher in our constitutional jurisprudence. lodgment its full authority exert rests Court than duty Constitution.” all violation principles prevent Bidwell, Harlan, J., S., Downes v. U. Iredell, Bull, re S., Calder v. 3 U. (1798),
Judge and its British Parliament the omnipotence ferring had suffered so much, from which they unrestricted power, said: “In war, successful which they waged against *5 SPRING O.] State v.
order, therefore, an evil, so it has against been guard great American have States, individually policy their framed Revolution, Constitutions since the and of the United people States framed Fed- they eral Constitution, define of the precision objects and to restrain legislative power, its exercise within marked and settled boundaries. If of the act of Congress of the State violates those constitutional Legislature provi- sions, it is void.” unquestionably
“It is axiomatic that al judici department the govern- ment is with the solemn charged the Consti- duty enforcing tution, and, therefore, in cases of deter- properly presented, whether manifestation of ex- mining given authority ceeded the as against any Constitution legislation conflicting therewith, and has become now fact in accepted the judi- cial of this life nation.” in the their exercise of people, political sovereignty,
established certain enumer government, delegated ated powers, to it assigned functions, established appropriate departments to them assigned appropriate powers duties, such limitations as imposed had experience taught be necessary for the and, to the end preservation liberty, that the should not, construction, government implication or otherwise, deprive unenumerated, them but “inalienable declared: enumeration of rights,” “This shall not rights construed others impair deny retained people, all not herein powers remain with the delegated people.” Art. This I, sec. 31. Court, 3 N. Bayard C., Binglebon, after most (1181), careful consideration “and with great deliberation and firmness,” declared that unanimously which the could could means Legislature pass repeal by any or alter the Constitution. However much we desire- may sustain the acts of the as co-ordinate department we recreant to the government, not, being us and the imposed upon citizen, refuse to duty rights *6 IN THE SUPREME COURT. 624 v. with the he makes issue which fearlessly the decide firmly the exercise In the of the duty government. discharge are statute, of the we validity pass upon power that we decisions the courts the uniform admonished by with examine caution, great should “approach question it as as delibera upon long aspect ponder in every possible throw new light upon can tion and attention patient the nullity void unless and never declare subject, our beyond are judgment, act placed, invalidity Petitioner, Shaw, J., C. Wellington, reasonable doubt.” Another Judge 182. Lim., great 16 Const. 95; Pick., Cooley wisdom, to the integ due decent said: “It is but respect has law which any body by legislative and patriotism rity until its violation in favor of validity is passed presume doubt.” all reasonable is of the Constitution proved beyond Saunders, J., Wheat., 12 270. Ogden Washington, law is declare a unconstitutional “Necessarily, power so in do duty to reluctance; exercised with but always declined, and must be discharged case cannot be proper tribunal of the with the deliberate judgment accordance drawn in ques enactment of the validity directly J., Co., Fuller, 157 Farmers L. & T. Pollock v. C. tion.” S.,U. 554. course in the regular
“It required our duty, void if not declare act Congress judicial proceedings, but this States; United within the legislative in a clear case.” be made except should never declaration Cases, J., Waite, 99 U. 718. S., Fund C. Sinking fol- uniformly The announced same been principle Before, however, princi- lowed this Court. discussing we to call attention to vague deem proper pal question, is drawn. terms in which the bill of indictment and uncertain The defendant charged 'bringing to-wit, more than one-half “on Burke, day, one certain gallon, names vinous or malt liquors.” of spirituous, gallon 625 SPRING- C] State v. Williams. on tbe Under this indict- two witnesses marked bill.
ment it is that the held, Court, by frequent rulings of witnesses testimony defendant be convicted, other marked into the bill, those than on bringing to 10 within years prior on two county, July, day for the fact in this was case (except passed until one-half of either March, more than 1907), While do beer or other we wine, brandy, *7 whiskey, liquor.
not is we think that defective, hold that bill fatally the to the or the constitutional spirit letter barely corresponds man has “in all criminal that provision prosecutions every The the to him.” be informed accusation against the right to statutes courts have interpretation a liberal wisely given the the rules rigid required relaxing regarding particularity in It would of indictment which formerly prevailed. bill seem that the have made its could jury presentment grand more kinds which of the prohibited specific by saying It hardly into the defendant liquors brought county. “on one all day.” that he of them certain
probable brought could The “or” would indicate the grand jury disjunctive not from which of them “brought ascertain the witnesses he in.” them to impris- Indictments citizens against subjecting trial, bail mortifi- annoyance, onment default of awaiting innocent, serious mat- cation and be never so they expense, ters. our Constitution is a vain guar- thing preserve shall warrants such liberty; general antees personal criminal shall not answer issue, be persons put if etc., indictment by grand jury, charge except upon may by legal substance of them fictions away explained real or We based expedients upon imaginary necessity.
would not restrictions government put unnecessary but substantial are not crime, rights the prosecution to make alle- It would be several very be sacrificed. easy counts thus in the bill, separate enabling grand gations 146—40 THE IN SUPREME COURT.
State v. from
ascertain
the witnesses tbe
truth of the
jury
very
their
oaths”
make
the citi-
charge
“upon
they
against
statutes,
counts,
zen. Under
all manner of
which are but
our
and a
thrown out
bills, may be included
net”
separate
“drag
men.
to insure
conviction of guilty
discussion
Coming
question
presented
e.,
motion to
the bill of indictment —i. whether the car
quash
into the
Burke,
unlawful
rying
pur
more than one-half
pose,
wine, brandy, etc.,
rea
related to
sale—certain
sonably
questions may
regarded
as settled.
in the
exercise
Legislature,
police
power, may, by appropriate enactments,
and, if
regulate
they
deem conducive to
health,
or
morals, peace
safety,
entirely prohibit
manufacture and sale of intoxicating
Eor the
liquors.
purpose
such legislation,
effective
making
make it
they
criminal for
have such
any person
liquors
in his
within
possession,
wherein
sale or
territory
gift
with intent
prohibited,
to sell
away.
give
They may
prescribe
the rules
such
change
of evidence by making
pos
session
prima,
evidence of
intent. This Court
guilty
*8
facie
has
sustained
uniformly
legislation
this character. Paul
Barrett,
v.
134 N. C.,
State v.
138
Washington,
363;
N. C.,
Patterson,
State
630;
v.
134
612.
C.,
In
v.
N.
State Dowdy,
purporting tbe morals or tbe no real or substan safety has public public these or is a invasion tial relation to of rights objects, palpable tbe tbe it is tbe courts law, secured fundamental duty so to tbe Constitution.” thereby effect to adjudge, give 114 N. E. State v. Redmon Rep., (Wis.), Recognizing tbe definite limitation tbe police difficulty fixing more in tbe courts refrained from cases have power, doing real have arisen “tbe than whether purpose inquiring has a connection tbe statute under consideration reasonable v. Hav health, with tbe welfare safety.” People nor, 149 N. 52 Am. St. cited in Y., 195; 707, Rep., People Lochner, 973. Tbe 177 N. 101 Am. Y., 145; Rep., St. well stated in Am. and result of tbe decisions been that a 938: “In statute or ordinance Enc., order Eng. tbe
be sustained as exercise of tbe courts poAver, police sec-that tbe enactment has for tbe object must be able to of some offense or manifest or tbe evil, preservation prevention morals health, Avelfare, the public general safety, real be- and substantial connection clear, that there some *9 and tbe tbe assumed of tbe enactment actual tAveen purpose thereof, and that latter in some ap the provisions do, plain, tend tbe accom manner, toAvards preciable appropriate of tbe for AA'bicbtbe is exercised.” plishment object poAArer IN THE SUPREME COURT.
State v. Williams. Moore, J., In State C., 697, 113 N. C. Shepherd, says: “While it is for what the determine regulations are needed to health and secure com protect public fort and intended to its measures calculated and safety (and these ends are discretion and within its accomplish generally nevertheless, not the true subject judicial review), is, extensive must in subordina be exercised authority tion to those law which of fundamental great principles for the designed protection liberty property Moore, the citizen.” State v. 104 N. C., In the entire in the exercise range legislation has received more consideration or police power, subject found varied forms than more of'expression efforts pre- vent the manufacture and sale of Be- intoxicating liquor. with the Maine law, statutes codes of ginning liquor the Union abound with every conceivable every re- variety legislation object having regulation, striction or traffic. prohibition courts, both liquor State and have Federal, been called to construe, on interpret statutes. of these pass upon validity many They and, have, remarkable sustained uniformity, them, of doubtful them such as would given interpretation meaning, the evil and advance the suppress An remedy. unusually careful and examination Assistant diligent Attorney- General and ourselves fails discover statute, either terms or similar to the under discussion. scope, While have resorted to Legislatures many control, expedients restrict manufacture and regulate, prohibit sale, either in entire States or cities or counties, towns, do districts, we find that the intoxi- anywhere any suggestion possession unlawful cating purpose, carrying into the wherein its sale is with no un- prohibited, territory lawful made indictable. While no means de- purpose, cisive to do so, fact no such attempt been made of note in worthy basis of seeking *10 TEEM, SPKING 0.] v. Williams. State if not unusual,
asserted well It will be to note tbe power. and the terms the statute —what it unprecedented, prohibits for its violation. who shall penalties imposed Any person the into of Burke in more than one- bring any day county for or malt the spirituous, except half vinous gallon liquor, is a for medical purpose druggist purposes, delivery aof we into stat misdemeanor. Unless read the may guilty ute it save from with exception to religious interfering the a minister, steward, guaranteed Constitution, liberty elder of the county deacon or church more bringing this law. A than the of Avineviolates prohibited quantity man who than one-half into the more county brings for own domestic or of for his use or spirits, Avine purposes, for that of his medical or is for for other -family, purpose, If he Avould he escape bring guilty. penalty, may for to a not otherAvise.. No medical druggist purposes, but intent, or occasion avail a defense. possible can purpose A on cars pri person passing through more vate in his trunk or than conveyance, baggage having his on prohibited quantity, journey stopping sell or intent to slightest aAvay, guilty. having give in conviction, be fined or Upon imprisoned he may discrer this tion of the court. No limit has ever fixed Court been the amount of Avhieh We have may lately fine be imposed. as not in the years sustained excessive sentence of two on roads for hard labor jail public violating law. Ave State v. Dowdy, Surely, supra. that, terms, recall indictment so upon an Alague upon testimony trial which defendant be convicted may upon he has heard and whom he has of witnesses Avhosenames neA^er them, until definite time neArerseen confronted convicted bill, to be fixed in the citizen be may required has néither nor conduct for Avhieh, statute, legal but in the discretion of court or moral fined guilt, and, in felon’s in company felons, imprisoned garb, IN THE SUPREME COURT. v. Williams. courts should worked roads for two years —the thus which the examine basis upon carefully restrict rests. If the citizen liberty *11 to within the it is within our not province ques- police power, of to and enforce the law tion its wisdom. It is ours declare in the the land —the Constitution —'the law which the people, their exercise of their have made for protection sovereignty, and It is no answer to the contention our guide. law will and mercy only be administered with justice —that Expe- those who are will convicted punished. be guilty who established State, rience those founded govern- taught written ment and secured its limitations constitutions entrusted to freemen not of could be liberty safely of man or unrestricted set sense justice mercy a is what it men. constitutionality The test do. those empowers authority which If liquor person, the quantity intoxicating has those named in in his any purpose, except possession, it is is a nuisance in Burke act, County, unquestionably public it within criminal make to create or it there. No any legal right person carry a This Can it maintain nuisance. is elementary. public said that the act of article be carrying prohibited se becomes, carried is, or that when there per was in support a This made nuisance? suggestion J., the Maine statute. C. of certain Shepley, provisions a as said: “There is can be nuisance regarded nothing from its use. itself alone and separate when considered by is the of a which causes It use employment thing improper would little a nuisance. be absurd to be and as such liable to abated nuisance, that to be be declare sold and which the act allows be purchased and destroyed, for medicinal and mechanical article purposes.” as an useful Merrimon, J., 477, 97 “The C., N. Yopp, says: State not extend to destruc- does police power exercise 631 N. SPRING C.] v. under the form of use regulating tion property con it, use of unless in cases where it, property, if the cases, stitutes nuisance. In such owner it is in the unlawful suffers such happens property injury, in its nature or it, itself, appli use or because the property Tenant, 610. Does cation, C., State v. unlawful.” its vinous or malt cease spirituous, property J., G. manufacture sale prohibited? Shepley, Drew, 33 Am. Maine, Dec., says: Preston v. 639), (54 “It on that a is, however, person, by insisted the argument in spirituous the common can no more law, acquire property than he can obscene liquors publications intoxicating marked There is a clear and distinction between prints. This them. Such to useful applied liquors may purposes. for medici
is admitted in their sale authorizing *12 alone nal their misuse or mechanical abuse or purposes. and mischief. Obscene
which occasions the publications nature and are in their productive prints very corrupting is not cor- of evil. are incapable any use They only In the moral Lincoln v. and to sense.” injurious rupting Smith, a it was Vermont, 27 328, well-considered opinion, that had to traffic held the Legislature power prohibit and it to seizure, and forfeiture subject liquor intoxicating Bonnet, J., says: destruction when kept purpose. for are “The act not prop- does declare they (the liquors) is no which should receive con- there language erty, ais struction there to forbid their being property. Though sell that cannot a man them, yet prevent prohibition from in them for his own use, property having intention to sell them, transported through they may law.” In State when is no intention violate the there Tennessee, 343, it is “Whatever S., Austin 179 U. said: immemorial has from time been produce recognized cus- a fit for or if sale, tom or law as barter subject particularly subject its manufacture of Federal been made regu- 632 IN THE SUPREME COURT.
State v. Williams.
lation and
we
taxation, must,
think,
as
be recognized
legiti
mate article of commerce,
it
to a certain extent
although
J.,
be within the
of the
So
police
State.”
C.
power
Taney,
Cases,
License
numerous uses that to which of such liquor may quantity other than of the rea put, selling, any improbability sonable person carrying quan prohibited sale, for can be insisted or substan tity such real tial relation to the sale exists? The case which a only at all similar to the one before us has before been Gillman, Court is State v. 33 W. Va., A., L. R. (6 847). defendant was for indicted a statute violating making
a “to misdemeanor in his another” for keep possession spirit uous a motion to liquor. Upon the bill of quash indictment, the court said: “The in his keeping possession whether for person, himself does for another, unless he so sale it, or for other illegal some can improper purpose, affect possibility morals or injure health, safety of the public, and, therefore, such statute prohibiting is not keeping possession of the legitimate police exercise It is an power. and immuni abridgement privileges citizen, ties of the there any legal and, justification, * * * fore, void. It make the simply attempt for possession A liquor, purpose, crime. dif- very if ferent would be question act had made it presented un- for lawful any person keep in his intoxicating liquors pos- either for session, himself or another, for the purpose it.” true selling unquestionably *14 IN THE SUPREME COUNT. v.
State counterfeit tools, of burglars’ the mere make possession may or obscene tables, pictures prints, outfits, etc., ing gaming indict use, lawful articles incapable any other probably welfare— are essentially injurious able. They Many welfare. with the public consistent use incapable any noisome, animals or emitting articles, things such as decaying destroyed. odors, or may summarily vapors poisonous or are rights pub not subject property are either They court of any decision We find lic nuisances. classifi malt within this liquors vinous, spirituous treating Ah-Lim, it is held 395, 9 R. A., L. In v. cation. Washington of opium, the use that a statute prohibiting divided Court an “opium thereof the fumes through inhaling smoking Two of power. is a valid exercise of police pipe,” Luck, 29 Oregon, In Ex Mon dissented. parte five Judges his from pos having a statute 421, person prohibiting enumerated and other drugs for sale session or opium offering from cer has not license who obtained made from opium, J., Bean, is “Opium O. said: held valid. officers, tain was for medici except and has no use active legitimate poison a kind of used to nal it is produce but frequently purposes; etc. case or eating,” Noticing intoxication by smoking that Gillman, “But he says: principle State supra, of common It here. matter has no case application are principally that liquors produced intoxicating knowledge manufacture been their and so common beverages, articles of courts as some legitimate regarded by they nor threat neither of which produces possession property, for any But the opium harm to the use ens public. has no act, as place than other permitted purpose, of this coun or habits of people the common experience these cases. further discuss unnecessary etc. try,” them, out the courts distinction, making pointed carriers not hold common We do obvious. That territory. into prohibition to transport liquor
forbidden TEEM, SPRING 0.] v. Williams. *15 Nor we undertake to express not before us. do question Amend- tbe effect of the Fourteenth any opinion regarding ment the with the manufac- of the States to deal upon power ture or sale of or the of to legislate liquor, Congress we Nor do of interstate transportation. the upon question in to pro- to the of the State express any opinion regard right with intent in hibit liquor nonprohibition territory bought into territory for the of prohibition purpose bringing as related indicate such are to or pur- quantities reasonably raised sell. AVedecide except question the pose nothing 1901, the Laws of prohibit- the record. of Chapter the Burke from into county any person ing any carrying vinous, than one-half spirituous more day exercise, for malt a valid power, police liquor, to the use it of the citizen that restricts the right unduly intent to violate any his without any prohibited property, of Burke that into the in relation to the it; carrying re- substantial reasonable, has 'no of the prohibited quantity law. It lation to sale of prohibited the liquors, held valid the “anti-jug” well that we have to repeat expressly sale, thus the which makes law, delivery place place in the in one place sale effectually prohibiting State v. another place. for the State purpose delivering Patterson, supra. defense, that defendant might, way suggested into he it or that carried intent,
show that he had no unlawful write would That for a lawful the county purpose. violence and do there, is not
language terms were doubt- If its intention of the Legislature. to the to so in- our duty it would be ful and to interpretation, open Constitution, be- as to make correspond terpret intended to com- that cause we would presume this appeal have retained Constitution. AYe ply most careful our from last term and question given THE SUPREME COURT'. IN v. rea- botb constrained, We and anxious consideration. indictment son and to conclude quashing authority, was there
No Error. of 1901 (chapter The statute L,C. dissenting:
ClaRK, spirituous quantity forbids anyone “bring’) 24) pur- Burke, into the small, however liquor, excepted), the owner’s own use whatever, even for (wine pose own even out of one’s grain init by making county, Con- held nothing fruit. It has been universally will of people stitution prevents expression *16 It in Legislature. that their representatives effect by frame a constitutional pro- much would ingenuity require to-forbid the “bring- vision that would enable Legislature whatever, by in for any in” purpose liquor, any quantity, ing the same dis- and would at time in the county, its manufacture from pro- their Legislature,' people, speaking through able when line, in” the county it across hibiting “bringing county. in an adjoining manufactured perhaps has no one been is such a constitutional provision, If there referred to or has not it. it been able find Certainly to" the Court. There no express in out the opinion pointed statute to hold un- the Constitution conferred by any power has not asserted any such been by constitutional, power of the United States. Three centu- outside court anywhere Coke, judicially, put but Sir Edward tentatively ago .ries was so completely in and he such forward England, doctrine Lord Bacon my contrary argument by overwhelmed in as sound doctrine never since been recognized that it has since all the courts been ever denied England, and.has all save this. world others) (and by the English-speaking this courts assumed Revolution, after the Here, soon it. provision conferring constitutional power courts, in but with has been acquiesced now long must constitutional that there limitation, well-recognized N. SPRING 637 O.] v. Williams. there must provision it, statute conflict the statute v. must, doubt San reasonable “beyond (Ogden ders, 12 Wheat., C., Sutton 213; Phillips, 504; Const. Cooley Lim., conflict with the pro Ed.]), [7th vision in A the Constitution.” statute cannot uncon be held stitutional “on because the or lawyer nor general principles,” on a court think that the law lawyers number of larger and others have yers enacted a law un Legislature that it is or harsh too advisedly unwisely, comprehensive.
If the it has how lawmaking jurisdiction subject, body shall it is matter for their discretion. The legislate courts have no veto power.
If the .the absolutely power prohibit manufacture of liquor, any quantity, purpose, must have the from other importation prohibit State. points As to across importations line, the State is not us, before but point notable bill now every of intoxi- prohibit pending Congress importation States is worded like cating liquor the statute prohibition ch. now (1907, us, before and does not restrict the 806) pro- hibition to such intent only “with imported sell.” that the us, before
Conceding provision *17 restricts the of into Burke importation intoxicating liquor in more than a a County half-gallon quantity day by one would the of a person, forbid importation larger quantity him, it per even -for his own day by be though might consump- tion, is not that as much as one could consume safely per day, and would not a the importation larger per per- quantity son be the health per and, day prejudicial public pre- at for ? sumedly least, the use others In each per- limiting son to a for his law half-gallon own use the per day (for per- mits the was Besides, not if sale) Legislature niggardly.
the manufacture, one’s for own use and though exclusively out of own the one’s can for- apples peaches, county bidden the Constitution, by breaking why ' IN THE COURT. SUPREME
State v. Williams. (cid:127) tbe the same article across the cannot importation even than day, .line, quantity half-gallon per greater The same for the use, one’s own prohibited power? by the sub- truth is that, jurisdiction the Legislature having in the wisdom and the limitations rest exercise ject, review only the by sound subject judgment Legislature, the courts. people, by in un- act importations The contains exceptions .allowing for medical limited for purposes” quantity “by druggists it use and sanitariums in by county, hospitals to each that, clear even at limit one-half per day gallon in for all proper can be brought necessary person, enough for thus get enough the ministers can purposes. Certainly it it is brought for cannot after communion buy purposes, they act. part uncontested sale forbidden in, being it the admit- was not liberal when The so passed the manufacture valid act tedly liquor forbidding the use of others. use, or its for even for one’s own sale county, of more The “into” the bringing prohibits day. on than one-half liquor any person can that forbid it carrying no construction be held to By over controversy county. theological “through” it never occurred was but critical, form of subtle baptism meant dia word eis assert that the Greek (into) anyone must of the Legislature the members Certainly (through). com- two such difference between be credited knowing and that, “into” words and “through,” mon Anglo-Saxon into” the county forbade any “bringing they person supposed more than he could be reasonably day per not intend to-wit, his own did use, they half-gallon, bring the con- On county. through” “carrying prohibit if there that, it was what they got trary, exactly wished— and out on it should be carried through quantity, larger county. as formulated opinion this is a law, If bad *18 SPRING- CL] Legislature it on tbe and the same placed book, can it. The repeal courts should not do so. As General Grant, when well “The President, best to observed, secure way of a law repeal bad is to It an enforce it.” does make like, act unconstitutional that no it has been preceding for this pass'ed, must have been at the case some time of every kind of statute. declaration will Every of the legislative must, first made, have been without a “The precedent.
world and we must moves, with it.” move There how- are, other ever, statutes like this: 1901, Laws 112, ch. “To pro- hibit the sale manufacture, importation liquor Lincoln and Catawba and Laws Counties,” 380, ch. 1907, * * * “To prevent in- transportation delivery into Rutherford toxicating liquors County” 7). (secs.
If the can make it to manufacture illegal at all, it can make it at all. illegal If it import power make it unlawful sell can make it it, it unlawful to buy it, for it the same transaction. is a vain thing prohibit liquor “manufactured” in if being Legis- lature powerless from an- prohibit “imported” being other county. To in” “import” across the “bring line, either one’s self agent. also from J., dissents of the Court. opinion
Hoke,