OCR Interpretation

The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, April 02, 1854, Image 1

Image and text provided by Library of Congress, Washington, DC

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030313/1854-04-02/ed-1/seq-1/

What is OCR?

Thumbnail for

WHOLE NO. 6430.
Veto Message of Governor Seymour.
Tl? Measure Finally IUM io the Senate,
Ac., Ac., &c.
The Veto Message of the Oorernor.
Kxicumn OKAMiiE t, )
Albany, March 31, 1854. >
Hon- Sanford E. C.'kjbch, President or the Senate
At I do not approve of the bill entitled '? An Act for
the Suppression of Intemperance," I return it to the
Senate, in pursuance of the directions of the constitution
of this State, with my objections to its becoming a law.
I bare given to the hill the respectful consideration
due to the importance of the subject and the deliberate
action of the two branches of the Legislature. I cannot
sign the bill, for I beli-ve its provisions are calculated to
injure the cause of temperance and Impair the welfare
of the State.
Anticipating action on the subject of the bill by this
Legislature, I took occasion, In my annual message, to
suggest, that "it was surrounded by difficulties and em
barrassments, and unless legislation in regard to it was
judicious, it would increase the evila it was so important
to prevent; that any measures adopted should be framed
so as not to conflict with well letlled principles of legis
lation, or with the rights ot' our citizens.
The bill ia unconstitutional, unjust, and oppressive iu
its character, and subversive of welt settlod principle.) of
legislation. The people, irrespective of their different
views of the use of intoxicating liquors, when advised of
it* provisions, will regard them with surprise and alarm.
The sale ot strong or spirituous liquors or wines, in
quantities less thau five gallons, is now prohibited, and
offenders are liable to be fine<l or imprisoned.
To this general rule there are two exceptions: The
supervisors and justices of the peace in each town, acting
as commissioners of excise, are authorized to license per
sons of good moral charactcr to keep taverns where in
toxicating liquors can be sold, provided they have accom
modations to entertain travellers; and a tavern is abso
lutely necessary at the placo where the applicant proposes
to keep the same. The Commissioners are also autho
rized to grant licences to grocers to sell strong and spiri
tuous liquors and wines, but not to be drank in their
thops. houses, outhouses, yards or gardens. The statute
further imposes restraints upon the sale of iutoxicating
Jiouors by licensed tavern-keepers <>r grocers, to appren
tices or minors. Violations of the terms of these licences
are punishable by tiue or imprisonent. The evils which
spring from the use of liquors in shops and drinking
houses, are mainly owing to the fact that the presout
laws are not enforced. In addition to this, the excise
officers are elected by the people of their respective cities
?w towns, and the citizens of each locality can prevent
the issuing of all licent-os, by electing those who are op
posed to granting theiu.
The people of this ^tate are divided in opinion with re
qord to the propriety of using intoxicating drinks. One
portion desire the passage ot' a law which will prohibit
their sale, while another, embracing those engaged in
various pursuits and professions, regard their use as
proper, although they doplore the evils of intemperauce.
These differences ot opinion have given rise to earnest
discussions, and have led to the formation of societies
<ind associations to check intemperance and to persuade
all to abstain from the use of intoxicating liquors.
The bill which I return proposes legislative interfer
es. It is designed to compel abstinence, by severe fines
and penalties, and by directing seizures and destruction
of liquors kept contrary to its provisions.
The ninth section of this a:t directs ?
Sec.!). Whenever complaint on oath or affirmation shall
be made in writing to say magistrate, by any twe or mure
credible persons. residents of the town or city where the
Mupiaiat is made, that they bate reason to believe, and do
lelitve, that iutoxicating liquors are kept and deposited,
intended fer sale by any perton not autnoriied to sell the
tame in any place whatsoever within said city ogAown. or
upon any water adjacent thereto, or within five hundred
yards cf the boundari ? thereof, which complaint shall state
the faots and circumstances en whieh such belief is found
ed, it shall be the duty of such magiitrate, if he be satis
lied that there is probable cause fcr such belief, forthwith
to issue a warrant e?mmu>diag the officer to whom the same
? kail he directed, with proper ateiitance, forthwith dilUent
lyte search MeUptaoe in the day time, and to seize all in
Torieatfi? liquors r?uu4 therein, together with Ibe vessels
within which the same are contained, and to store the aatns
ia some safe and convenient place. to I e disposed of as here
iaatter provided. But no warrant shall be isaned under
this 01 the preceding section, to search any dwelling house
j^wliich. or in part of which, a shop is not kept, except upon
pfeof that intoxicating liquor has been sold therein by the
joenpant thereof, or with his oon-ect, within one month be
fore the time of making stioh complaint. Every warrant so
issued shall dosignate and describe the place to be searched.
The eleventh section of the Bill of Rights asserts '-that
the rlglit of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses. papers and eflects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures, ought not to be violated : and no warrant
can issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, particularly describing the place to be search
ed, and the persons and thing* to be seized. " The same
declaration is contained in the Constitution of the United
This provision of the Constitution of the United States,
an?l declaration in the Bill of Rights, were designed to
prevent the issuing of 'general warrants." They were
suggested by the controversy in Great Britain growing
out of the resistance of the friends of civil and constitu
tional liberty to the exercise tif protended prerogatives
of tho crown. This controversy called forth able exposi
tions of the rights of citizens, and excited profound in
terest in Great Britain and its dependencies.
The principles advocated by those who wore the bold
ind eloquent defenders of the colonists were impressed
upon the minds of the men who framed our political in
I The decision against "general warrants" by Lord
Camden, whose memory will ever be held irreverence
by the American people, for his defence of these rights,
and for his great abilities as a judge and statesman, was
received with tho utmost enthusiasm by the friends of
constitutional liberty. He declared -'that to enter a
roan's house under cover of a 'general wan-ant,' in or
der to procure evidence, was worse than the Spanish In
quisition ? a law under which no i^ngli?hman would wish
to live an hour. It was a most daring attack upon the
liberty of the subject."
The warrant to be issued under the ninth section of
this bill is obnoxious to all the objections urged against
?' general warrants," and eorfli ts directly with the de
claration in the Bill of Rights. It is not directed
against any person, and, thorefore, is a nameless war
rant. It authorises officers, in tho^rtwcnce of tho owner
of the premises, or of the property to be seined, to search
wherever malice or their suspicions may lead them. It does
not describe the thing to be seized by quantity, quality or
insrks. The complaint may only charge that certain de
scribed liquors are kept contrary to law; but the war
rant must command the officer forthwith diligently to
search the place designated, '? and to seize all the intoxi
ating liquors found therein." These liquors may be en
tirely different in their character, and may be owned by
a great number of persons under varieus circumstances.
In ca?e complaint is made because one cask of liquor in a
warehouse, canal boat, cr other vessel, was, in the belief
of thl*complainant. designed for sale, by a person not
mthori/ed. tho officers would be compelled to seize all
other liquors it contained, although they should be the
proper!? of different owners, ar.d there should be no pre
text nor complaint that they ?*re deigned for sale. It
is made the duty of the officer to seize tliem, ejeu if it be
perleutly apparent to him that they are designed for
shipment to another Stat*. or foreign market, or are im
ported and remaining in the original packag -s.
Many of these objections apply with equal force to the
eighth section of this act.
It Is no answer to these objections to fny that the ar
ticles cannot in the nat ure of things be more particularly
described, or that artifice will be resorted to to conceal the
n al owners of the liquors anil their intended uses. The
inadequacy of all human taws to reach and punish of
fences of "every grade, can never be obviated, and furn
ishes uo reason for overthrowing the great principles of
ju*tii e, or the safeguards of the constitution. To resort
to this would be to create a l'ar greater evil than that for
which a remedy is sought.
New York was for some time unwilling to accede to
the union of the States without amendments to the
Nutional Constitution, which, among other thing*,
should shield the persons and pro|ie. ty of our citizens
ii-ainst unreasonable searches and seizures. When it
finally adopted tint constitution, its assent was aecom
psnied by a resolution that it was in full confidence that
the proposed amendments would be engrafted upon it.
This was done, and our State boul 1 be the last to vio
liste principles adopted in accordance with its demands.
The directions for seizing intoxicating liquors, con
tnined In the laws of Massachusetts, are similar to those
of this bill, and in most instances the wrao terms-are
nsed. The distinguished Chief Justice of that State, in
a recent and elaborate opinion, held such proceedings to
lie in violation of the Kill of Rights of m.m? ichusetts,
which contains deelarat ions on tin subject of searches
similar to thnt of New V. rk
It is true that the hill of Rig its in this State has not the
authority of the constitution; ' ut with the law making
power it is entitled to equal re;mrd It consists ot' de
. T rillions of great ind universally concede I truths ?
political axioms, which constitution* and laws are de
signed to maintain and defend. This act Is more open to
the objections urped against "general warrants" than
the provisions decided in Jias-aciinst tts to 1?- Void* It is
declared, in both acts, that -no warrant ahull lie issued
under Ihlsor tha preceding section to search any dwel
ling house except upon t>r<>oi thai intoxicating liquor
ha* Ix-eti sold therein by the occupant, or bv his consent,
W. tliin one month Ik fore the time of making such com
The protection this elsnse iimiaiently gives to the
home* of our citizens is prac tic illy destroyed by tho fol
eatraorU.uaiy rule ?I eyidvues 1&U '11 tU?
32<i aec'ion of thin bill, and which i<* not contained in
the law of Massachusetts ?
S*o. H. Upontbc trial of tty cinaplniit tr civil action
commenced under any provuioa of (hie act. proof of the
sale of limner (hall he sufficient to ruitain an avnrment of
an unlawful nalc Whenever an unlawful eale i* allowed,
1 and a delivery proved, it shall uot he naO'Hsary to prove a
payment, but auch delivery ehall b? sufficient evidence of
In other word*, when an unlawful sale or liquor* is
alleped, it ii sufficient to convict tho accused of a inisde
' ineanor to subject him to fine ami impitsoninent, and to
forfeiture of his pro|>erty, nierHj to show a delivery of
liquor an act legal, and, under some circumstances, com
mendable. Reverting every principle of evidence aud
juatice, proof that.* citizen haa given and delivered to
another any intoxicating liquora, although it may be for
mechanical or medicinal purpose*, by a monstrous legal
inference convict* him of a crime. Thus, without proof
of guilt, he is condemned, union* he can prove hia inno
cence. What security have our citlaena againat the in
vasion of their homea, by officers (who are directed,
without regard to the presence or absencc of their occu
pants, diligently to search their dwellings.) whon the
proof of an innocent art is sufficient to convict
of an offence, and to place hla home upon the level
of the shop or warehouse? Thia act la highly penal, and
the searches which it directs are designed to seize pro
perty, and to procure evidence of a violation or intended
violation of the law.
The doraicil of the citizen has heretofore been consi
dered so sacred, and lma been so fortified and defended
by the principles of the common law, that it is familiarly
?po!;enof as his castle: it cannot legally be searched,
although the occupant in charged wKh murder or trea
son. Under the most tyrannical sovereigns of England
this principle hss been preferred by the Court*. The
only deviation is in eases of searches for stolen property,
which are allowed upon the ground that they are de
signed to restore it to it* rightful owners. Kveu this ex
ception has been regretted by emiucnt jurist*, and ita
propriety doubted.
What cannot legally be done to detect the darkest and
most dangerous crime*, ia directed by this bill, to pro
cure evidence of guilt, and to forfeit property for acts
which are now legal, and the criminality of which is ad
journed over until the close of the present year.
The 18tn, 14th, and 17th sections of the bill, directing
the forfeiture and destruction of liquors, are unconstitu
tionpl. It is declared in section 6, article 1, of the con
stitution, that "no person shall be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due procesa of law."
Section 9 of the bill directs the officer, when a warrant
is issued to search any place, "to seize all intoxicating
liquors found therein.'' If complaint ia made that a sin
gle cask in a vessel, custom or warehouse is unlawfully
designed for sale, all other intoxicating liquors in such
vessel, custom or warehouse, must be seized, although |
there is no complaint or pretext that they are to be used i
for any unlawful purpose. These are usually stored in
large quantities in commercial towns. Any person plac
ing a single cask of intoxicating liquor, which is unlaw
fully owned, in a placc where such articles ar? stored,
subjects them all to seizure.
This may be done by malicious persons with a view to
Cfinsi their seizure, or to take advantage of this unguard
ed law to get possession of property with fraudulent de- \
nr ^Wne'eizure, if the owner., a re unknown, I
or cnnnot bo found, and their places of residence are not
known to the officer, he ia directed to deliver a notice to i
any person ol i mature nge, residing in the plac? where the
seizure is made, or ir none such can be found, bv posting I
the notice upon the outside of the premises, and in two I
conMpicuous places in the city or town.
Section 13 directs that the liquors shall be stored for
two TieeUs alter service and posting notices: after which
"iTV? KUe,F-r0r "f,such wrvice and poating, such liquors
shall ^ thC mHtfiStrate' ttnleM **
Section 17 of the hill direct* that the mngigtrste. when
W OW ; *h"" iwe a warrant command
ing that the liquor so seized and forfeited be dostroyed.
c* . 'i ctl?n3 the citizens of this and other
'? fj *repent from all parts of this great country to be
stored in our commercial towns. The summary measures
against intoxicating liquors, authorized bv this act
i7i? w^?' 10 ?ros\fraudH *nd malicious proceed
u gs. Two weeks notice by posting would be entirely
insufficient to non-resident owners. In the case of liouors
seized because they are in the same rXl ot w.rifioSS
with others, and forfeited and destroyed because the
h n0t kn?wW of their He'7"re. cannot be said
owners b*Je, ndepmed of their proinrty
<by due r recess of law." No complaint has ever
been made with regard to it, nor ia it within the
contemplation of the complaint on which the
Taw " thi?Ue"' "k1 Wll'1h ''*weeP? " into the net of the
law there n-.ay be no charge, pretext or belief that it is
designed for any unlawful object; no inquiry or investi
of the rfl? V?ade b>" officer to ascertain the facts
i ? Pr?l,er,7 18 ???**?, and because it is
found on the -nine premises with other li.(u?rs intended
imputed* fleDce " forfeitml aBd ^'troyed for this
fort?nate]y receives notic*. his con
stftul'oral rights ar?- not protected. The Supreme Court
h?''rr 'n^l decided that the terms "duo process of
law. u-ed ,n the constitution, "cannot mean less than
f in'titi,,ed,and "OnJucted according
m '?*"-/ r?rm* and solemnities far uacertaiiilnz
guilt or determining the title to property. It will l,e seen
that the same measure of protection against WUUtive
encroachments is extended to iifr, liberty am! proue-tv
and if the latter can he taken without foVenscMH^and
judgment, there ia no s^cur'ty for the others. "
l.-^lw''"! * rrCl~riX <*Du"t be destroyed by mere
1 fill1 Prr>v',: ' * that " any parson may. at luy time l.e
, , f rt ititre, pr*p?nt a claim to the property neizeil ????!
the ttaaiatratc *hall hold a cou: t for the Eriil of
rlaitr. an -t ill a l Lear the proofs and allegations offered in
aopport of and against the aame, and iSles. the SVimanfc
fllinil sLow by positive proof to the ti&tiifai'tinn i?f *>.. t
?"chj "'inor is of foriign production aVd ha,
been imported under the laws of tlie United States nu,i in
th:?*wlth' "d u ??talned la ?he oViId5a*Mck
n aes in *hicb the same was imported, and in cinantitie^ not
less than the aws of the Uaitft State, priori*, aid that
?.e MMt was kcrt ty him for lawfal purwaeV or that th.
"T'VY la* fnHy 4jt? his possession and was kept by him
. n iu purposes, the *ame shall he adludaed lor&ita,?
and udcrr.-nt .ban rendered against th? "ufmant for thi
f.'*j *nd delault of payment thereof, execution ahull he
issued thtrefcr, hK&mst Lis property and nerson."
Although the seizure and forfeiture is highly penal in
its rlmract?r. and no ebarge is made that the proper#
is i He gaily held, yet against all principles of evidence
y' '* that the law has been
violated. tliak the owner ia guilty, and his property lia
to confiscation, unless he can ;'sh+w bv nositivA
proof that the -?me was }cept for lawful purpoeee!" Thi-.
malfes It a question of intent, of which it U impossible
to give positive proof." 1
There is nothing in the act requiring the complainant
to appear against the owner so that he may be informed
of the true nature and causc of the aocusation in truth
no complaint may have been made against lii'ni or his
JETS* 1 U n0t re1uircJ ,h?t ??c shall be confronted
with tlie witiiesseg against him: his guilt is aMumed
True, it is provided that the magistrate or jury shali
hear the proofs and allegatirfcs offered in support of and
againn the claimant, and that witnesses maybe com
pelled Hi atteud; but until the claimant has first shown
by positive proof hia ownership ef the property its lo
galitv, and that he kept it for lawful purpSf the liw
require# no allegations, and no proofs against him tiie
Whfch St ,erCOmi! te b>" th^ oriK'"al ? oaths, upon
which hi? property was seized by warrant. Reversing
the order oi every other known proceeding, he stands
convicted until liia innocence is proved upon charges
made ana.nst other parties. 1 onarges
This is not, due process ol law. Thisp?int was recent
, l.y decided in the supreme Court of Mass?chuset:s wh.-re
tl e same-iuertlon ?u involved. The language of the
Bill of I-ights of that State i? not as decided against such
forfeitures as the constitution of New York.
* ^ other objections I shall urge against the bill apply
to proMsions which aro not contained in the laws of Van
ofany gtl'teC''r ti)j0Uld th'y ^ '0UUl1 iimon,f the "tatutes
Thev are oppoaed to all well settled princijdes of com
mon law. dangerous to the liberties of our citizens and
repugnant to the religious and moral sentlmenes 01 thn
c mtniin. ty. .Whatever differences of opinion ihere ihhv
I li?r( r a tt|,Uw' Prohibiting the sale of intoxicating
I oUhls tlii Wil' b" n0n0 Wi,h "Ome features
Sectic n 19 pro> idea that?
i white, j wfUin?'
up, n wblch his t,4ii?ris lonn^d 'X'uJ
maaMrate. ^y any p. r.<.n that be haajnat caui to an^V
t aa.l doea ?n?p?. t and ttelieve, tl at any ofteare a?ai"n.t^.C
, pruvlnun ot this act hai haen committed, and that some
other per?on er ptr.ona, named by him, hai h?v,t,??
l?dg? of tie rommlaslcn of fuel, offence, fn.-h mair|jtrat? x't
I bt tk??kth.r. h, pmbakle ,an,e to h?II.Vt??t ,n'h wr
I n , r shall forti, With la, ne a aummona to the per
Ir ' , ? , commai.din* him or them to ap
I < ar "t i crc lnni at a place and time nm in.<re t. an [?? rt.u.
there alt. r. to l? de,i/i,,ted. in such "umitona, to uTflfv fa
relatif i. t< inch comidalBt te'tn> in
Section 21 directs that: ?
Whenever any p<?ra?n ahall nppearor t>e Hronzht W?r?
"a " P/ovit',H '? ?he two preceding section. H
th ' ?L*"flh m?K"trat?to adminiater tu aiicli
,er.oa an oath <>r aArinaiiua. ami to eaauiini! him f, r ths
puri.i ? of aaec-rtaiainK whether any offence had l.een om
1 ii Jfainit any provlilon of thla act If .u,'h Ser?n
?hall refuse to !?? awrrn < t affirmed, or to ???w'r anv nn?
?ion r< rtfaeat to aueh examination, he ahall he ommlVfa l
to the comtnc.n iall, there to remain until he ahall "on
to he .worn <;r affirmed or to an.wer. If 0p?n Mi'l, ,.Tmi
naticn it M?a]! appcur tliat any inch offenco i m i.e. n ?<.**
n.it'e.l within the jurisdietlor. of fuch maturate, it ihall Te
for iae *r"H of thi KVr
aril the rean h of hla prfml ?? a' horeinift- r provided
In order to subject any citizen to thia Inquisitorial pro
creo ng. it is only necea-ary that a complaint should be
nia.le. which need not state no:- prove that nu nlTonce
liaa bron committed, but only aiiapicions and 1h? fact?
t.pen wl "h thev ere founded, loauthoricothe mairi.trato
j to b. int' '''tore him, by summons or attachment the por
! iaving ?om- knowledge ol a imputed
ni.en.e. lh)% h#? may do, alt l ough no t rocc vlinm h ve
| been ccmmenced arainst persons or iroperfv nn trial
?nding. no rig t to the s^ice.of counsel^ or open l.ear
I lu1:: ? ihn i,r;in brought UJ. ^
t' ; 'i f ' mo*t iii-ely to be the offender himself- vc*
Jm f" h!m, sur" ""h'nrn
mr? iry. In thlseearch after an tdlcnce If tli >
o zfrr :? to h* ?;
tnan nor ?lo>?r ?h?re to remain until be consents
1^i?2\atlia?!?Lrf !,h0. derlarei
! tit ;z;;, / crim,n1'1
in er exi niriatlon. he would still bo compelled i?
nmdo ierhn bvTcT -' / k? " Is
mart< je..nn> bj he aci . if he admit* that he )iaa mm
nutted an eii. nce it Is made tlio dutv ??-- - - ? ?
1 toarreat him and search his prefni"^
If this hill .should liecomo o hw. this iinnreeadon 1
1 imTn in:: w,r; 'r.:,prvprt?' ,o ",o pJrp^..,
would be w^4too'n?iu tmnnony ia ciranu4cjimw i
Milts, not growing out of thin taw, but arising out of the
ordinary transaction* ot' Ufa. Proceedings to tyrannical
and unusual would teud to strife, bitteruoiM and resist
ance of the laws
There are marly four tlnu -and local magistrate* be
fore whom these inquisitorial proceedings may be had;
there (ire to be no limitations of their power* ,* they are
not to be subject to the rul*** of evldenoe, nor restrained
by the rights of witnesses, they may aak such question*
ah their dborotion shall dictate, and compel answers by
imprisonment; the character of the nvestigatlon and
the imprisonment are determined by the discretion of
the Justice,
The eloquent denunciations of a distinguished juriit
apply with peculiar force to thia proceeding ? "The dia
cretion of a Judge is the law of tyrants. It is always un
known; it is different in different men; it is casual, and
depends upon constitution, temper and passion. In the
best, <t is oftentimes caprice; in the worst, it is every
vice, folly and pension to which human nature is liable.'
Section 26 of this bill provides that "any person may
maintain an action to recover any money paid or the
value of any services, or labor rendered or done, or the
value or possession of any property, assigned and con
veyed, in payment for liquor sold, contrary to the pro
visions of this act, by the husband, wife, parent, child,
ward, apprentice or servant of the plaintiff, and in every
such action the person by whom such money was paid,
services or labor rendered or done, or property assigned
or conveyed, if not a party to the action, or the husband
or wife of the party, shall be a witness to any matter
pertinent to such action. Any married woman nuy
commence and maintain any such action in her own
name, w ifli or without the consent of her husband."
Under section 29. another action may be brought bv the
juroe parties, "against any other person who shall soil
any liquor contrary tq. any provision of this act, to the
hushsnd, wife, parent, child, guardian, ward, apprentice
or servant of the plaintiff, or wlioeliall intoxicate or cause
such person or persons to be intoxicated, and it ahall not
be necessary in any such action to aver or prove any
special damage, but the court or jury before which sucli
action is tried shall assess the damages of the plaintiff
therein; but any special damage may be shown. Auy
married woman' may maintain any such action in her
own name, with or without the consent of her husband."
Those two sections create rights of action heretofore
unknown; under one, the persons designated can recover
money they have never paid, and under the other main
tain an action for damages which they have never suffer
ed. The sympathy which is naturally and justly extend
ed to suffering wives and children, and the indignation
excited by the belief that the seller of liquor has often
turned a deaf ear to their entreaties, mint not lead us to
create evils on the other extreme, nor to be blind to the
unlimited effects of these sections. They do not make
proper discriminations. They would permit the wife,
parents, and each of the children of a temperate, intelli
gent and virtuous man, without regard to their number,
age or condition, to recover money which never
belonged to them, tnd which may have boon paid to
an unlicensed seller for liquor purchased for mechuni
ical. medicinal, or even sacramental purposes. After his
children, parents, or his wife have reoovered the amonnt
paid to the vendor, the latter may again be sued by each
of the described persons nnder the 29th section. In this
action it is not necessary to show any violation of law*,
except by the intendments consequent upon proof of the
delivery of Intoxicating liquor.
In the multiplied suits which may be brought under
this section before a justice of the peace or other magis
tri^e, it is not necessary to prove or aver any special
damage, but upon mere proof of the delivery of intoxi
cating liquors, the jury are authorized to assess damages
at their discretion. The defendant is liable to be deprived
of his property by a prejudiced or excited jury, without
having any of the usual protections which our laws atturd
to the most dangerous and hardened criminals. He is de
nied the benefit of the intendment that he is innocent
until he is proved guiltv. Under our laws, in certain
cases, juries arc authorized to give vindictive damages
where the violation of the law is shown by actual proof,
and the character of the transaction is brought to their
knowledge; the evidence given in such oases affords some
guide to their judgment, and an unjust verdict may fee
corrected : but under this section they may have before
them only presumptions and intendments of guilt, and
nothing to restrain their pnssions or prejudices. This
section creates new rights of action, and abolishes salu
tary modes of proceeding, and the best principles of
I It is not the due process of law required by the con
j stitutlon of the State. The suits under this section, and
' all other suit*, civil and criminal, authorized by this bill
I to be tried subject, to the provisions of the thirtysecond
1 section, arc not trials in any sense in which that term i?
understood by our constitution and laws.
There are other objections to the twenty sixth and
twenty ninth sections. The domestic relations are
deemed sacred, not only by the laws of the land, but by
the religious and moral sentiment of our people, and
tlieie are but few who. under the influence of novel
ideas and theories, seek to impair these relations. The
public sentiment would approve df a law which should
give a right of uction to the wife and children of intem
perale husbands and father*, against those who should
sell them intoxicating liquors, and which should subject
the defendant to exemplary damages, if found guilty
after a fair trisl. But the" lawful head of the family
should not be deprived of the respect and author
ity due to his position until he has forfeited them by
his misconduct.
fruits brought under these sections, where the father is
the buver and a temperate man, necessarily imply that
he is tfif instigator of a dishonest prosecution on the
part of his wl'e and children, >r th.'t lie Is to be made an
I object of contempt by tin in. It t*v>e? his home s scene
I of s< rife or s pine* where fraud is plotted. In order to
' msintain suits li is not nee^jmrv to show that the father
- I> au intemperate man. incapable of managing his af
? fairs, or thai the liquor was purchased for the purpose
! of drinking: lie in not oven guilty of an offence when he
bvys. It may be said the seller should not violato the
j law under any . circumstances But the worst of crimi
j nals must not I'e deprived of the protection of the prin
i ciples of justice. This act multiplies penalties, lines,
forfeitures and actions against the allege*] offender, and
at the game time deprives him of the constitutional
right of presumptive innocence.
The thirty-third section of the bill directs that li no
person or corpoiation shall knowingly carry or transport
I any liquor from place to place within this State, or from
any place without this State.* to any place within this i
| State, and no person shall knowingly deliver any liquor !
to any other pernon ov to any corporation, for the pur I
! pose of being so c?rrie l or transported, unless the n.xme !
! and place of business or residence of the persor. to whom j
( the same is to be conveyed, together with the wonts
| ' intoxicating liquor,' are distinctly marked on the out- I
i side package in which the same is contained."
j This regulation cannot be of great importance in car- '
rying out the object of the law: but it would, in connoc- j
tion with the provisions for the seizure of liquor, inflict 1
! a serious blow upon the great carrying and commercial
: interests of tb? state of New York.
.As there would always be a liability on the part of the
' citizens of other States to overlook or neglect these police
; r> vulatlons. they would create constant embarrassment
to our domectic commerce. The law recognizes the '
I legality and propriety of manufacturing, transporting
and using intoxicating liquors. Hut if It subjects them
to penalties and forfeiture upon light proof, or for im
puted offences, which are proved by the mere fact that
they are found in vessels or store houses, with liquors
illegally held, It will divert from our canals, our railroads
and our cities, not only this particular commerce, hut all
that is connected with itr
I Tl.e citizens of other States will not separate their
| diversified productions when they send them to or
I obtain them from the markets of tiie east. If we drive |
off a ] ortion of their commerce, their convenience and i
interest will be promoted by withdrawing the whole, and j
i k eking other channels which are free from embarrass
j nients.
| The idea prevades the law that unusual, numerous,
ami severe penalties will lead to iU enforcement; but all
I experience shows that the undue severity of laws defeats
i their execution. After the excitement which enacted
them has passed away, no one feels disposed to enforce
thcin; for 110 law can be sustained which goes beyond
public feeling and sentiment.
I have omitted i<ny notice of many defective provi
sions in the bill, ns they might be corrected by future
legislation. I have confined my objections to those which
aie radically wrong, which are inconsistent with the
principles of justice, with the rights of persons and of
property, and which so pervade the ldll that they cannot
be stricken out without destroying its entire fabric.
The bill is wrong, because it directs unreasonable
searches ? f the premises and dwellings of our citl*'*i?
under circumstances calculated to provoke resistance.
It deprives persons of their property in a manner pro
hibited by the constitution: It snbjects thera on mere
suspicion ot knowledge of a suspected crime to an in
quisitorial examination.
l or ore act of alleged violation of law a citizen may
be proceeded against as a criminal, may be fined or im
irisoned, his property seized and forfeited in civil suits
by various parties with whom he has had no dealings,
and be tubjecUd to the iaymi nt of damages 'vheu none
have been averred or proved. To all these prosecutions
he infly be subjected, without the benefit of trial in the
in ?1 and judicial meaning of that term.
The constitution makes it my doty to point out the ob
jectionable features of this bill: but I owe it to the sub
ject, and to the friend* of the measure, to add the ex
presslc n of my belief that habits of intemperance cannot
be cxtiriwtcd by prohibitory laws. They are not consis
tent with sound prlncij les of legislation. Like decrees
to regulate religious creeds or forms of worship, they
prowke resistance wh> re they are de-i? nod to enforce
obedience. The effort to supj res* intemperance by un
nrosl and arbitrary measures, proves that the Irglsla
ture is attempting to do that which ia is not wlthiu its
proviso* to enact, or its power to enlorce.
This is the error which lies at the foundation of this
bill, which distorts its details, and makes it a caueof
sngiy controversy. Should it become a law, it would ren
der its adipcates'odious as the supporter* of unjust and
i arbitrary enactment*. It? evils would only cease upon
itsvcptalcr when it becones a dead letter upon the
statute book. Judicious bgislation may correct abuses
in the manufacture, sale, or use of intoxicating liquors:
it can do no more.
'lie cxpeiience of all nations in all periods, demon
; strate? that temperance, like other virtues, is not pro
; dnced by the lew makers, but by the Influence ofcduea
| tien mrrallty, and religion.
While a conscientious discharge of duty and a belief
tbat explicit language is due to the friends of this bill,
require me to state my ejections to the measure in de
| cide-l terms It nn'st not be understood that I am indiffer
ent to the evils of intemperance, or wanting in respect
and sympathy for those who are engaged in their sup
pies-icn. I 'regard intemperances a fruitful source of
? da Hon ?nn misery. I look with no favor upon the
' and practices which have produced the crime and
!ng which arc constantly forced upon my attention
;.o fainful discharge of official duties, After long an 1 I
.jest tcflecUon, I *i?j satisfied reliamo cannot he placed
upon prohibitory laws to eradicalo these evils Men may
be persuaded ? they canuot be compelled ? to adopt habiU
of temperance.
I concur with uiauy of the earnest and devoted friend*
of temperance, in the opinion that it will hereafter lie
c?um for regret, if the interest which ia now excited in
the public mind upon the Habjeet should he diverted
from ita proper channel* and exhausted in attempting to
procure legislation which ouit lie fruitless.
The Final Defeat of the BtU.
Albany, April 1, 1864.
The Senate this morning proceeded with the considera
tion of the bill for the suppression of intemperauoe.
the question being, "Shall the bill pass, u>t withstand -
ing the objections of the Governor. ' ' The vote was ayes 14,
noes 13. So the bill is lost, two-thirds of tlio Senators
present not voting in favor of it.
nmom excitement in toe senate? the GOV
Aiaakt, March 31, 1854.
There were exciting times iu the Senate In 1851, when
the dornn Senators resigned to prevent the passage of the
Canal bill. There were highly interesting scenes about
the time Senator Beekman put his foot upon the aspira
tions of ex-Governor Fish. There were animating and
interesting periods when the sceues of thi secret session
of 1842, even openly discussed, but neither on those oc
casions produced any excitement within a hundred per
cent approximating to that experienced in the Senat
chamber this morning. Before the hourarrived for com
menting business, Urge numbers of spectators ha '
gathered in the chamber. IJeut. Gov. Church called to
order, the prayer wan made, the journal read, and
numerous petitions presented. While standing and select
committees were reporting bills, the confusion became
so great and the lou<flaik so intolerable, that Senator
Barr was compelled to rise and call the attention of the
Chair to tit* fact that it was impossible to hear anything
read at the Clerk 's desk; and, rather than continue in
this manner to do business, he more l to take a recess
until four o'clock. Mr. Bishop also stated that it was
impossible for him to hear a word, in consequence of the
continu.il buzzing about the chamber. The Chair ordered
the officers to preserve order; when, after a few mo
ments, Mr. Burr withdrew his motion. About this time
Lieutenant Governor Church called Mr. Dickinson to the
chair, who in a few moments vacated it, and installed
Mr. Monroe. When the Senate arrived at the order of
business, (for announcing messages from the Governor,)
Mr. Monroe announced one from the Executive Chamber.
The Clerk commenced reading, and It was immediately
discovered that it was his Excellency's message vetoing
th? Maine Liquor bill. By this time the uews had spread
in every direction, and the Senate chamber soon became
crowded to its utmost limit with anxious spoctatorrf,
listening to the Governor's reasons for withholding his
signature. The document was quite lengthy, and occu
pied the Clerk three-quarters of an heur in reading it.
The crowded audience, though jammed closer than in a
mass meeting, listened throughout with silent attention,
and every one caught eagerly eveiy word as uttered from
the lips of the Clerk.
The moment the message was received. Mr. Bishop and
Mr. Z. Clark both rose simultaneously, the formor to
offer a resolution that the Senate' do now proceed to re
consider the Temperance bill, notwithstanding the veto
from the Governor? the latter, that the subject be laid
on the table, and tho message be printed. Mr. Bishop's
motion lieing entertained by the chair, (Mr. Monroe,)
Mr. Z. Clark moved to lay it on the table. Here a spirited
aud somewhat excited discussion ensued. Mr. B. contend
ing that it became necessary, in conforming with the
provisions of the constitution, that the Senate should
proceed to reconsider Its action upon the Temporanee
bill. Mr. Spencer supported the motion made by Mr.
Clsrk. Mr. Brooks inquired ? are we not now required to
proceed io reconsider the vote last giren on the bill?
How can the matter be disposed of, if the Senate can say
that on some future day we shall proceed to reconsi
der!* This body must proceed now as the constitution
Mr. Dkkinkin moved to lay the whole subject on the
Mr. Chosby thought if the Senate only paused for five
minutes to reconsider, without concluding, the subject
could be postponed to any other time the Senate may
deim pre per.
Mr. 7.. O..AKK thought it premature to enter into a dis
cii'sion npou reconsidering, before the message was
).rinted and on our table". Accor ling to all parliamenta
ry proceeding', it wis competent to postpone the dubjeet
nntil we have had an opportunity to examine the docu
niert sent us.
Mr. Biwor beHered tha' if tin- jjenntc desii?<l to pais
the bill notwithstanding the veto of tin- Uovrrnor, we
Di?' t proceed to reconsfdrr at once; but he was not
aivjous to voie np?ii it at present; It Is however unne
cessary to offer t Y.n resolution upon the coining in of the
wcfiage, but a majority ?ray say when a vote shall be
Mr. Hopkins ? The Senate has already conformed to the
constitution, po far as it has gone." A resolution has
l?-en offered that we proceed to reconsider, and that is a
sufficient compliance.
Mr. Brahfom) inquired what was meant by "reconsider
Mr. Pctnjim also wanted to know what was meant by
Mr Parr replied, that by it was intended to get the bill
apuin properly before the Senate
Mr. Crosby roao to a point of order, in that Mr. Biali
op'? rcuolution was out of order
Tlie iRilR (Mr. Monroe,) decided it to be In order.
Mr. (rotby appealed from the decision.
The Chair repeated his deciiion, and fortified bin posi
tion by referring to precedents.
H-rethe con*titutional polnta wer<> elaborately dis
ci -fed liy Messrs. Crosby, Hovmxh, Di*hoi\ Pl-tuah, and
others; and there appeared much difficulty in ascertain
ing whether " reconsider," as placed in the constitution,
n cant voting or discussion.
Mr. Pick infos here moved to lay tfce question on the
appeal on the table.
Mr. HoPEjss ? What will be the effect t
The Cham, answering, said it would liave theetlect of
laying the whole subject on the table.
Mr. Wst. Ci ark? And the fubject can never be called up
The question was then taken, and Mr. Dickinson's mo
tinn was carried: ?
Ayei? Messrs. Barr. Bradford. Brooks. Butts. M. H. Clark.
Z. Clark. Dickinson, Dorranee, Kield. Ilitelico.-k, Hopkins,
Frstt. Putnam, Robertson. Sberrill, Spencer. storing.
Walker. Wat kill, Yost ? 20.
Nay>? Barnard, Bisbep. W*. Clark, Crosby, Dant'ertb.
Jlut i, ins, Richards, Whitney? 8.
Mr. HaRR moved n reconsideration of this vote.
Sir. Prooks moved to lay thht motion on the table and
called for the aye* and noes.
Mr. Robbrtfon moved to adjourn ? lost 10 to lb.
The Chair then stated that Mr Barr'a motion was in
order but not debatable, and Mr. Brook's motion not in
Mr. Brooks appealed l'rom this decision ? ?ut -cyiently
Several Senators de?ired to apeak, but the On. agiin
info mcd them that debate was out of order.
Mr. DlCRINsos ? 1 want to say one word; an i lie ? on
tinned for five minutes, during which time he - .ited th.it
the person who had b?en all w inter more ansio,.- Diau
any one else for the pas?ge of the t-mi ersn- e bill, wo*
tlie chief constitutional ;tdvi?er ol hi? Excellency in
vetoing it.
Though no n.tme wa.? mentioned the audience well
knew the allusion wa< inade to Edward C. 1'cUvan, who
Kin* the first person who carried the new-- out ot the ex
ecutive chamber yet-terday. tlmt a veto would tu?? place.
Mr. Kobrrtsox again moved to aikjourn
Mr. Cropsy laid the motion could no* be entertained
a- ii. motion of that kind had just been lost.
The Chair decidcd the motion in order, when the
Sinate. atone o'clock, agieed to adjourn, by the follow
in/ \otc ?
Messrs. Ei?hoj>. Bradford. Bj'ti. /. Clar.: Dickie
rn 1'rrranee, Field, Hitcbeeok llp'-ins Hut 'Mat. I. an
sin . Prntt. Pntnsre. Rct.crtsoa. Sherrlll. Walker. W hit
nev, Yost? U.
N syi? Messrs. Barnard, Barr, Briok? M. If. Carl:. W.
( lark, Crosby, Danf >rth, Monroe. RIoLardi, Spencer,
Sf-rlnr. M'atkins? 12.
The membei i deserted the House during the excite
ment in the Senate to such an extent, that Mr. I'cters
tj ought proper to move a call of the Mouse, which was
seconded, and the doors were closed, spectators turned
out, and the Sergeant. at-Arms despatched to the Senate
O ember, Congrese Hall, and other places, in search of
absentees, An hour's time thus consume! when busi
ness was resumed.
A communication was rectived from ti e vestry, church
wardens find vestrymen of Trinity Church, in answer to
a resolution of the Assembly, asking for a. detailed state
ii ent of the number of lots of land, where situated, il
underlease, when the lease" expire, annual rent*. >iid
inc me of all their property, and also the amount of debt
owing by such vestry, nnd when such debt Is payable.
The document Isqnl'e lengthy, occupying twenty eight
manuscript pajres. 1 gather from it ?
D'Uf or r.iaHU'ir* A?w*rd ft;/ Trinity Church
I'onda or obligatio -mo by Trinity Church.. 9307,829
Temporary Loans 33,008
] .labilities' opened 141 ?75
Total 9672.488
The item of 9141, 676 lathe amount presented toward*
tl e erection of churches in vnriou* parts of the Sttte
The Bros* annual Income of (lie parish is 180,907 70.
annual interest on debts. 93ft. 682? leaving a net income
< f $46, 40ft.
Ground renta 184,507 >15
Do. Llspenard lease 177 ftfl
Pew renta * ' 8,889 75
Interest 12.380 10
Total 9*0.987 70
Annnnl intercut on debt 936,682 08
Net annual income 94.">,406 02
Signed by WM DUN8COMB, Comptroller.
Certified by Wm. Brrrtah, Rector. ?
It" harp Haoaoork. Vealry Clerk.
Auuxr, Apr'.l 1, If >J.
Relative to the mode of keeping tax MMints in New
'lli.* Pure Milk bill, coinpleto.
The New York Juries bill, complete.
Mr. Lavki.no, (nat. dem ) of JefTerson, reportrd advert*
If to tlie petition of Masars. Brjrut, Gmlljr and other 4,
for counsci >u Uu' Lemiuou ?U< o case.
Mr. Hopkins, (dem.) of Washington, reported adrerse
ly to tlie petitions of colored citiiens for the e<le:isiou of
the right of suftrnge. Agreed to, 13 to 12.
Mr. Cubic, (free soil) of St. Lawn-noe, reported a
biH .authorizing Albany to aid the Alb-iny and Susque
hanna R* ilro.nl.
Wag taken up.
Mr M. H. Clauk, (whig) of Ontario, moved^to rnaVe
the subject the special order for Tuesday. I<ost ? 10 to 10.
Tli ? Chair put the question : " Shall the bill pass, not
withstanding the objections of the Governor V I<ost ?
?ye* 9, nays 18.
The Senate then, by a vote of ayes 14 nay a 13 refuse I
to pass the hill. Here is the vote
Avm? Mesirs. Bishop. Bradford, Butts. M ft. Clark.
Dickinson, Dorrance, r'iold, Hopkins. Mtnro-v Pataam.
Rlohardi, Robertson. Whitnsy, Williams? 14.
Nays? Messrs. Barnard, Barr, Brooks, ("rosliy. D?nfor'l\
Hltoheook. Hutcbina, Lansing, Pratt. Storing. sJnia or,
Watkins, Yost? 13.
Mr. M. H. Clark moved to reconsider that vote, and to
lay that motion on the Ublo. The Chair decided the mo
tion out of order.
Mr. Clark appealed; but the Senate sustained the
< hair, 17 to 7. and refused to reconsider.
Mr. M. H. Clark now moved the reconsideration of the
vote on the final passage of the bill. Lost ? ayes 10, noes
15, as fellows: ?
Ayks? >t?*?rs. Burr, Bishop, Rrsitforl But*". M II.
Clark, HuloUins, Munroe. Rlohards. Robertson, Williams?
It. ,
Nofs? Messrs. Barnard. Brooks, Crosby. Dsnfortli. Dick*
iason. i'ieltl, It it clicook . I.an*inx Pratt. Putnam, 3|>on?or.
Storing, Wstkins. Whitnov, Yoct ? IS.
Mr. Wii.t iam.s gave notice of a bill to am >nd the revised
statutes iu relaiiou to licensing the sale of intoxicating
Mr. Williams, (whig) of Tompkins, gave notice of a
bill to amend the Revised Statutes relative to iicena-s.
Mr. Danforth (nat. dem.) of Schoharie, introduced
hills to fix the salaries of the Lieut. Governor an I Canal
Mr. HctchinA, (nat. dem.) of Kings, pres >nle 1 a re
monstrance from Brooklyn against the I.ong Island Rail
Mr. Z. Clark asked consent to have his vote on the
question, shall the Temperance bill pass, not withstand
ine the objections of the Governor. He desired to vote
" no."
Severnl objected, on the ground tliat the constitution
provided that onlg those should vote who were present.
The bill in relation to the Court of Common Pleas in
the city of New York was read a third time, and then
laid on' the table.
To amend the Revised Statutes in relation to proceed
ings for tne perp<tnation of testimony.
To amind the charter of the Crystal Palace Associa
tion. 1
'lo authority other persons than over&ecTa of thep?or
to prosecute for violations of the Excise law.
Mr. Bishop moved to recommit the bill, and alluded to
the inconsistencies of thereto message. It whs a mis
statement of tholaw. where the law was pretended to
he quoted. It wax a contradiction throughout. He
withaiew his motion.
Mr. Crosby had no doubt if the bill passed it would
increase litigation in the community ? fill tbe pockets of
the lawyers alone. It would be a rich harve*t for that
clasp. He was opposed to the bill.
Mr. I'ickjsson Imped the bill would pass.
Mr. Richards' objection to the present laws was that
they were unequal. The argument of the opponents of
a prohibitory law had Von that we had law- enough ? it
was only neces-ary that they be enforced. He was not
surprised at the inconsistency of the opponents of the
prohibitory law manifesting itself on the bill.
Mr. WlMUKs hail paid but little attention to ihis bill,
in consequence of tlse general desire to pass a prohibitory
law intended to do away with this entire system. He
hoped, instead of passing this bill regulating tbe traffic,
we should yet strike at the very root of the evil. He re
garded It as granting special charters to engage In 'he
liquor traffic, and then | ass little petty general laws to
emulate this matter. His object !n giving notice of it
ill to-day was to repeal this special chat ter system. He
leferred that the bill be laid aside:
ftr. DAJnWtTH staled that the vote was taken on the
ucstfon sustaining tbe veto of the Oovernor without
disensston. because a number of members de.ire i to
leave at noon. He regretted that the Oovernor had
placed himself against prohibitory laws altogether. He
regretted, aa a friend of tempeianee. that this question
must go down to the next canvas*. He regretted tha'
the men who stood at the head of the temperance troops
in this State bad ? not in so many words, but in efec? ?
sustained the veto: had prepared a feather bed for the
veto to sleep in. The hand upon the dial of temperance
bad gone back at least twenty rears Although late in
the session, he hoped some act would tie passed to put
this traffic out of existence. He doubled the efficacy of
this bill.
Mr. Di? KI5B0X remarked that the Senator from the Se
venteenth. as a partisan, ought to have known that t lie
would be vetoed.
| Mr. Panfortu had no doubt of it was the flr>t.
Mr. Dicxitoox had seen the men who brought about
this veto. Prince John Van Rnren was here as he was
when the twelve Senators resigned. The scheme was
concocted at Washington by the Lecretary of State. Ho
ratio Seymour was to be the candidate for (iovernor. and
if defeated would ha\e a call across the Atlantic. Hut he
worth] lie sft badly beaten that it would r< quire affidavit*
from all parts of the State to prove that he was a candi
date. The power of the adamantine" would b? . sufficient
to call in the men who stood by the rights of the oountrv
? who had some respect for the morals of the cosununi
ty and the rising generation. TheOovernor w,i? *o effect
ually killed that no galvanic battery could revive him
Mr. Pratt, a.* he understood this debate, it amounted
to a post mortem examination of the prohibitory law
which had been killed tlds morning. He thought th?
bill would have an unequal and unfavorable effect, and
lie would prefer trying to enforce our pres< nt laws a lit
tle fat ther.
Mr. Fhwcrr believed it an honest vote. He could not
understand why the Senator from tin* Twenty sixth de
sired to mix this matter up with politics ? nor could he
understand why party tactics had been brought to bear
to postpone the law go ng into effect until December.
Mr. riOKlKVIf ? It was but jnst totho*ewbo were en
gaged in the business that time should be given to close
up this business
Mr. Hopkixh said ?!lusi? n had been made to one of hi
Cf nstltuents ? Mr. Pelavan.
Mr. PiociNsojr ? Doe* he live in Sandy Hill. Where they
here stated preaehing.'
Mr. IIopkiv? ? No, sir; but If the Senator will intro
due# a bill to clange l is place of residence. I will for it.
Fut . sir, after this bill has cone to the Gorernor. who
?i> consulted in regard to it? Kdwanl (.'. Delevan. Who
first saw the message Kdwsid C. I?el van' Who first
g.'ve public notice tl,at the h'll would l>e vetoed!" Kdward
C. 1 eleven. He thought that In tblMourse Mr. I'-devan
I h d forfeited his cla m* a* the leader of the temperance
it en in this State. This npostle of temperance deserved
the reprobaticn of every man in this community for
c< n.inc Out and j aving the way for tl e i.'overnor'* veto;
after working for the bill all winter JWith nlia' propriety
did thi* man appear before the i ^nple of this State- T"
h. ve tempr'anee men de?e: t us before even the <?0'0 nor
1 rd rent in his veto was so insult to the ten-per.inee
' rr'-n ol the State. He thought the Maice law bad suf
fered more a; 1he hnm> of its l'tiend* then its ? nemie.
\ resolution ought to he offered to return to F.d ward C
IMcvi-n the diploma h* > ad presente I the Senate He
hoped It would lie offered.
Mr. Barr v. as about or.<ringone thankinr him fortlie
Mr W"jij*sos though' the friends of tempemnce
should not he dlshearfepeil 1 v the?e reverse* We had
a> '.ed wisely, discreetly, in h s judgment in fixing upon
I the day the prohibitory law whs to take eflect. That
hav:ng been lost, we *hould take conra^e He d'd net
, belit \e the gentleman who had been alluded to aflrmod
o' the course of the iJovt nor. ortha' lie counseled such
a enurse. Still, take courage froin adversity, an. I pass a
bill to s'rike at the root of the evil although the (Jover
! nor inleht ?tand in the war.
Mr. <"Rohry wa -i surprised f o s< ? thes# <ii*sensions in
the rani* of those who bad -n long stood "hottlder to
older. er tha' they anouM a'tack ore of th- ir pr'me
movers. He liked to see consistency In this matter. He
i' lieved the Governor nou! i be sustained by the cora
P1 unity in his action, not politically, for h' had not tho
-ladew of a party bane t>e at his heels lie awarded
I. m consistency in this matter. Whohri Mr. l^davsn
desired to know what t he aolion of the Governor would
be and \>ho would lie the first man to publish that de
ci-ion to the world?
Mr. Pasforir had not noticed any disagreement on
tbt. part of the temperance men here. Th" friend* of
temperas < desired to strike out entire section* of this
I 11, hut the pressure from the outside was too strong for
it, and hence the ve>o.
Mr. 7. Clark favored the )>s<-*agc ol the bill before u*.
He knew the excitc law in its present, shape could not be
Carried Otii. He insisted that the Senator from the
Twenty-silth, (Mr. Dickinson.) had not nerve enough to
puss the prohibitory law to take affect before theelection.
Mr. DkmMKt had never expected that uny Senator
would aay that he bad wot nerve enough to act upon a
question' He believed the Senator from the Fifteenth
(Mr. 7. Clark) had not nerre enouih to be present to
vote on the veto message.
Mr 7. ft ark? I a*kel consent to record my rote, but
it wan refused.
Mr rttCRfwaoN continued ? Bv adopting December wa
designed to keep the question out of | olitic< ? out of the
next election.
Mr . PcrKAM. The bill had been 'l-'cate' th? 8RHW
hid not been atated. Whether it w*i Mr DeUvan, M
van uot prepared to aay. What had '*fn couree m
the j>ecuiiar frieodi of th0 bill in both t
to fore* down proriuioos exceptionable, irfthoiit ?????
nient, and it had received iU fate. lie aaid *? the fne?Ja
of t"iri|H"r?Qr? tliat they luust listen to moderate me? ?
must give Aomc heed to their counael*. Tim b II h i<1
been carried through by llliberality. When ihe b?
passed tii 14 Ixxly first, the moderate men were t>?r*tod i?
the lobbied, ami in the public preaa by f&natica. Tlie ?m
treme friend* of the ir.ea.uire might charge upon flkeaa
driven, in a great measum, the defeat of tbia bill.
The bill under discuasion waa laid on the table,
nm oovkr.-.or ami uu Ai'iDnmuurw.
The hill to amend the Kevi*>d ^ututeM in relation lo
the power of the Oovemor to make appointments during
the receaa, came up from the House atnnnded, a ad ?W
concurred in. Thin bill is to preveut the r,oY?rnor fro?
filling certain office* that will become vacant after the
adjournment of the Legislature
thk I'Kiyn.M) or nm K>?uoa
Mr. SrSNCn moved t hat 10,000 copies of the Gamur'l
veto message lie printed.
Mr. M. H. Ci ark moved to liy the mation on 'ha ta>le.
Agreed to.
Adjourned to U A. M. on Monday
AISAHY, April 1, ISM.
Tho bill to incorporate the Tract Society of New York,
(Methodist Episcopal,) waa panned.
To allow Brooklyn to raise money for an armory.
To incorporate the Tract Society 'of the Methodut l^pu -
copal Church.
To amend the Revised Statute* in relaton to the ap
poiutmenta to office by the (iovernor.
For the better regulation of the firemen of the OiW ef
New York.
Relative to tho salary of the Police Justice* *f the ?''tf
of Albany.
snx ooranw.
The bill creating a State paper ?M COKBitMd (f I M>
lect committee. ?*
kutcrk nuCR or innm.ia.
Mr. Moti raw moved that on and after Tuesday nest, tt*
Ho use will meet at 0 A. M., and hold, also. afternoon and
evening sessions. Agreed.
When the bill to designate a State paper cjM> up for a
third reading,
Mr. Amur moved to recommit the bill *.i as in strike
out the clause providing feea, ins'at'n^ that lh.> punting
should lie done aa cheaply aa it is now done.
Mr. D. P. Wood thought the bill, a* amended, just
right He lielieved that all who worlte 1 for the Slite
should be paid.
Mr. Clinton believed tho bill should be recommitted.
l.ost, and tlie bill waa then passed, 06 to 30.
Making appropriations to provide for deficiencies exist
ing in appropriations for the present fiscal year, to meet
claims and demands against the Treasury, on account of
the canals. Passed.
Adjourned to Monday morning.
NEWS BY tel.egra.ph;
mi,? The L,atr"t ftfom Washington.
tULTi f ETC*
Washington, April 1, ISM.
e understand tbat government has received dea
patches from Havana which are calculate.! to etnbirraaa
and c< triplicate the ?ftttlemeut of our Cuba trouble*.
British emissaries ara suspected of having instigated
tho Buck Warrior aff.ifr, under cover of the British *~f
French protectorate.
The Gadsden treaty in Retting very weak in the baok.
There id a prospect, indeed, that it will be rejected, a?t
^ withstanding the pulling and blowing of the lobby.
Ii U understood that the late pending duel hung fire
on the challenge. Mr. Cutting s first note to Mr. Breek
enridge, demanding a retraction, involved ako a chal
lenge. Breckenridge declined to retract, but, overlook
ingjhe challenge, did not signify his acceptance, la th*
controversy which followed. Catting claimed the right
of the challenged party, and named pistoi* as his wea
pons. Breckenridge, insisting that his right was not
superseded, selected the rifle. This was the great diffi
culty: but at length mutual retractions were secured
and peace restored. The friends of Breckenridge hare
placed the correspondence at the discretion of the otbar
side. and we presume It will be published. Rumor sa y*
Bieokenrkige has the advantage in the settlement; bat
tlii. cannot he. for it would reflect dishonor upon tb *
other party in thus overreaching his adversary by dipl*
maey. I.et the correspondence he published.
Since writing the abort we learn that Mr. Breckenridge
has authorised the publication of the ternu on which tb*
difficulty was settled, end they will appear soon.
1 he amount of public debt redeemed during the past
I week was $312,800. The amount in the Treasury on tb*
; r t ot April Hulijeet to draft, was 3i8.74ti.7<)2 78.
? The jury in the Scljauinhnrgh ciae are still out. with
| no prospect of agreeing.
From the South.
Baitwork April 1, 18M.
We have no mail south of Washington.
The revenue cutter Campbell ha* arrivet at JforfoJlt
fr. ra her winter cruise, having sailed over three th xisund
miles, spoke three hundred and fifty vessels, relieved tea
in distress, and saved four live-.
Hetekiah stokes was to-day elected Mayor of Ports
mouth. Va.
Olsnater to the Steamer City or Richmond.
| I'hiladilpiiia, April 1. 1864.
j 1 i.e steamer City of Richmond, which left here thU
morning, was compelled to return this afternoon in con
| sequence of Fo?e damage to her machinery. She wa*
t? ven lor the City of Glasgow, and su announced from
N? wcastle.
Three- Live* Lo*t from Exposure.
Chicaoo April 1, 1854.
A boat containing three dead men was found on the
lake shore, eight miles weet of Michigan City. Tliey are
supposed to have been fishermen fr .m Milwaukie, and
died from qjpoxure.
Conviction of n Mnnlerrr.
J'oktla.mi, April 1, 1854.
The jury in the case of Conolly Brothers, on trial foe
the murder . f Guiner at the lato Irish riot, haro brought
in n v?r!ict of guilty of murder in the second degree.
The Weather In the West.
.. . CwcitrxATl, April 1, 1H.VI.
II." leather here is very cold, and it is now suowiac
Diipkljr. 9
AvornKK I'koeabi.f. Homciwi in New Or
I Xssf? Uirr. AMI VKTOMAXtT ? fit Charles street was vea
tercay thrown into a high *:ate ol excitement by an' at
? torn 1. 1 on the I art , f ft wemsn to kill a man in 'the bil
I Hard rr. mi of the St. <bi.rl?. Hotel. And. indeed. the
atNmj t was but too nea.' saecenful. John Hitaelburger,
tbeviMim, was tfci gx me keeper of the billiard r.xwis.
nr.?! r<1 of the Hj<Hrtin^nt? bv nf^htand by d tr.
Occasfet ally e rlrl nsm?.l Bridget <)ufnn had >Wn em
ployed after the ro< m* were closed rt night, to scrub awl
clean tli' m, m.l tter*ra!ly the nime keeper remained in
| lh? room t? look af'er his queues an I balls. Ibirlni
t>.cfo mMrfgh' seruhhfnr* it is ssid that John mad* verr
| mpr. j* *d?an ?<- to f'ri.Jjret am', indeed, went so far
I a* to enrompa** ?r ruin by t iumthintt over her\irtne
When M *r Br ? if' t Murphy. the mother or Bndg?t
y.iinr. esrned i i w irstf. rs stood. her Ire became uncon
J tri !!*>?!?? hmI sun.n i uirg her laughter to her side ?h*
repaired arn-rd wi-h a hnrwaad keen-edged knife, tothe
bil lard rm.ir. Tn search of John. It was shortlv after
| n ,? ?,sy wt.i n the '?n art !v?d. ,ar.l everv table was sur
| rounded by anxious players Kven John had a qneu* in
nis hands, and w?< glorying over the fs^t that he ha4
jn>t roai'.e a run nl thir^' which he concluded by jiocket
mg both jof the nark Istils, and thereby terminating th*
k?n e in his fa>or The yonri)rer Rrldpct sent for the gar
k tii^bt of the <jur\ie. sn>' ?to<. ' aps't with him for a tlm*
In earnest c< nreifat'on What tha' eonversation was ire
ecu Id not barn: yet, certain It I*, that heiore it endod
the elder Bridgel appro?che.j whispered somethinir liisa
int'lv in1<i the ? sr . I Hitselbiirge- snd then pl.inzeil the
knife. (?hlch ?hc h?.l hit'.erto c,.nceale 1 beneath her
rr.antle.) thrice iutc his bo<!: . The daughter, when ahe
saw what her mother had don-, selred her with frantic
*T?.p In erdf r to | reren' hei fre,n again using hsr knife.
In the meantime Hltselhurgi r staggered and fell, and was
< xert.ua!ly conveyed to the f'harltv Hospital where hut
sirs'] W [ es f' bis recovery are entertained. B.,tb the
im therand tl.e rtsiiphte wer?' arrested, and are held to
await the rtsult of Illtai'lbtlrger's wotin Is.? A'eis 'Msmi
'try I "Ho Ma-rrh 16.
Klraf Dlatrlet Conrt.
Before Hon Justice (.teen
A'Ri 1 .?Jarti /, Unhkrt'n 'iqa>n f ,va>itut! Sjiencrr otvi
others ? Tliis w,.? r> gurrmirr procee ling to obtain p.nnes
aif i? Of premii - 110('hnml'? r? ? rc?t, let to the defendant
St 'neer at a rrnt of #1.000 a year, and on which it was
alleged that there w?s dn? to him $T77 7%. Spencer did
n> I sppn r, 1 at the under tennta who are al?o included
as rtcfen 'anls. came forward and set up In their affida
vits that they onlv owe.j their immediate landlord.
fSpinccr,) $1'.0 They did not however, deny the alle
gRtlons contained in the plaintiff's affidavit Hie Court
held tha' the under tenants. In order to reia'n pn-.se*
?'on. were jionrd to pay th? hea l landlord. Judgment,
for plaint i<C. 8
Some three or fonr of the Olouooster halibut fishermen,
who have now Jie^i. abaent ?er< ral weeks, it id 1?JU?*
foundered In

xml | txt