be a proper subject of inquiry. The first attempt to recover the value of said tobacco was in 1833, twenty years after the seizure. The reason assigned by the petitioner, that he wished to bring the subject before the New York Courts, is to your committee wholly unsatisfactory; they see no good reason why said claim was not prosecuted before the Courts of this State.

This claim was first presented to the Legislature in 1842, twenty-nine years after the seizure and confiscation of the property. During this long interval of time, many facts may have become obscure or entirely forgotten by the living, and more sealed up with the dead. The want of any satisfactory reason for this long delay is to your committee strong presumptive evidence that there is little merit in the petitioner's claim.

In the opinion of your committee, the prayer of the petitioner ought not to be granted, and they recommend that the petitioner have leave to withdraw his petition.

A. STODDARD, for Committee.

(G)

REPORT

OF THE MAJORITY OF THE GENERAL COMMITTEE ON

THE LICENSE LAW.

To the House of Representatives, now in session :

The General Committee, to whom was referred a bill entitled "An act to repeal the act of 1844, relating to Licenses to Inn-keepers and Retailers," report that in their opinion said bill ought not to pass, for the following reasons:

The bill proposes to repeal a law of the last session, which provides that the people shall exercise the power of determining in their several counties, whether licenses shall be granted for the sale of intoxicating liquors to be used as a beverage. The repeal of that law will have the effect of restoring the previous law, which committed the question of licenses to the decision of the County Courts, so that the first and great question is-shall the people, or the courts, exercise the power of deciding whether the traffic in intoxicating drinks shall be licensed in this State. Your Committee have sought in vain for any reasons which will justify the transfer of this power from the people to the Courts. They are constrained to believe that the people are the appropriate depositories of that power. The question is one in which they are directly and vitally interested, with the evils connected with the traffic in question they are well acquainted, and we believe they are fully competent to decide the question of its continuance. To deny this, is in effect to deny that they are capable of self government. There are questions, we admit, which the people cannot well decide in their primary assemblies, such, for example, as the questions appropriate for submission to the judicial tribunals. It is self evident there must be courts for the trial and determination of such questions ;—but it is equally evident that such a question as that of keeping establishments for the sale of intoxicating drinks-the good or evil of which comes directly home to the business and bosoms of the whole people-they are not only competent, but peculiarly well qualified to decide. We hazard nothing in saying, that in every case in which the people can conveniently decide questions which affect their immediate interests, it is but a just carrying out of the true democrat

ic principle, that they should be allowed to decide them. Your Committee are of opinion that the law in question should not be repealed, for the further reason that it is of but recent enactment, and that the question of repeal should not be agitated, till more time shall have been allowed to test its policy. Frequent changes should not be made without urgent reasons, such as may be expected usually to manifest themselves by decided expressions of popular dissatisfaction with existing laws.Your Committee are not aware that dissatisfaction exists to any great extent in the present case. The most natural expression of it would be by petitions for repeal of the law, only one of which has been presented. The people seem satisfied with possessing the power of deciding the question of licenses, and will not, your Committee believe, approve any attempt to take it out of their hands.

It is said that the law is not executed, and should therefore be repealed. As a general rule, your Committee consider this no valid reason for repealing existing laws, for it is no evidence that a law is not good, because those entrusted with its execution fail of performing their duty. There may, indeed, be a popular sentiment against a law, so strong and and universal as to render it impossible to execute it; but so far as the law in question has failed of execution, we are confident it has not resulted from this cause. In the opinion of your Committee, it has resulted mainly from doubts with regard to the constitutionality of the law, arising from rumors of divided opinion upon the question in the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case carried up from Massachusetts. Many of the friends of the law are indisposed to urge prosecutions for its violation until the question of its constitutionality is decided by that tribunal, which will probably be done during the coming winter.

Your Committee deem it wise to wait till that decision shall have been made before we agitate the question of repeal. If it be decided unconstitutional, it will become a dead letter; if otherwise, it will remain to be seen whether the public sentiment will sustain proper efforts to carry it into effect.

Your Committee are called on to express their opinion upon another bill referred to them, on the subject of licenses, against which they deem it their duty to report.

This bill proposes to repeal the license law of last year, and substitute for it an act, the essential part of which confers on the listers in each town in the State the power of licensing, and fixes the amount to be paid for licenses at sums from ten to one hundred dollars, to be paid into the town treasuries for the benefit of Schools. Your Committee deem it important, for obvious reasons, that the power to grant or withhold licenses to sell intoxicating drinks, should not appertain to any exist ing office, or be connected with any other official duties; and beside this, we think it obvious that license, or prohibition, should be by counties, and not by towns; else it may so happen that, though nine-tenths of the people of a county should desire to be exempt from the evils of the sale of intoxicating liquors, the other tenth, consisting of one or two towns, might effectually thwart their wishes, and in spite of their efforts inflict on them the evils of intemperance.

The benefit to Common Schools, contemplated in the bill, would, in the estimation of your Committee, be no compensation for the manifold evils which would be connected with that benefit; and besides, there seems to us to be a manifest impropriety in supporting schools

from means drawn from licenses to demoralize and impair the intellect of community. We are persuaded the people are too wise and too consistent to sanction such an absurdity.

Upon a view of the whole ground, your Committee are of opinion that sound policy, as well as the popular voice, demands that the present law should remain undisturbed, at least until its merits have been fairly tested.

All which is respectfully submitted.

JOHN CROWLEY, for Committee.

(H).

REPORT

OF THE MINORITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE LICENSE

LAW.

To the House of Representatives, now in session!

The minority of your Committee to whom was referred a Bill entitled an act to repeal an act relating to licenses to Retailers and Innkeepers, have had the same under consideration, and beg leave to submit the following Report:

We find that under the operation of the license law of 1844, licenses have been granted in several of the counties to the extent demanded ; while in other counties licenses have been withheld except for medical, mechanical and chemical purposes; that in those counties where dealers are licensed, the sale or use of ardent spirits has not been much affected in any respect by the law of 1844. In those counties where licenses have been withheld, the use of ardent spirits has not been lessened to any great extent. In all the counties it has been sold as a beverage, either openly or secretly, and in at least three counties the sale has been open and in defiance of the law, and the Grand Juries have refused to notice any violations of the existing license law, and their action has been sustained by public opinion in those counties, and, consequently, the law is wholly inoperative there; and the dealing in spirits is falling into the hands of irresponsible persons, and results in much mischief.

The proper enforcement of all laws in this country, in a great measure depends upon public opinion; and any law that is not in accordance with, or is in advance of public opinion, or any law that a respectable portion of the people regard as a violation of their rights, cannot be enforced. It is believed by a very large portion, if not a majority, of the people, that the existing license law is wrong in principle, unequal and unjust in its operation, and an invasion of private rights, and one of those insidious encroachments upon public liberty that should be resisted by all legal means.

The provision of the law of 1844 that prohibits under a penalty" any person keeping a house of entertainment, or shall furnish therein any victuals, lodgings, or accommodation for guests," is manifestly a violation of private rights, and cannot be enforced; nor is the whole law, as construed in some counties, any less a violation of constitutional rights. The minority of your Committee do not deny the right of the Legislature to regulate, to a certain extent, the sale of spirituous liquors; but