“Sec. 1. The penal2 law is hereby amended3 by inserting therein a new article, to be article one hundred and thirteen.”
It goes on to say: “The possession of liquors by any person not legally permitted under this article to possess liquor shall be prima facie evidence that such liquor is kept for the purpose of being sold, bartered4, exchanged, given away, furnished or otherwise disposed of in violation5 of the provisions of this article; and the burden of proof shall be upon the possessor in any action concerning the same to prove that such liquor was lawfully6 acquired, possessed7 and used.”
As every one knows, in ordinary cases a defendant8 is considered innocent until proved guilty. But here we see a dangerous reversal of that idea in jurisprudence. Anyone carrying a flask10 would be considered, in the eyes of this law, a bootlegger, a purveyor11 of illegal goods—in fact, a criminal even though no evidence had been produced to prove him121 so. In our anxiety to purify the nation, we have distorted old established laws, turned reasoning topsy-turvy, and once more made ourselves ridiculous—in the Empire State at least.
“Of making many laws there is no end,” one might paraphrase12 Ecclesiastes. In his remarkably13 interesting book, “Our Changing Constitution,” Charles W. Pierson points out the growing dangers which confront us, because of our repeated amendments16 and addenda17. He sounds many a warning, and every American should read his brief but profound volume.
“Whatever view one may hold to-day,” he writes, “as to the question of expediency18, no thoughtful mind can escape the conclusion that, in a very real and practical sense, the Constitution has changed. In a way change is inevitable19 to adapt it to the conditions of the new age. There is danger, however, that in the process of change something may be lost; that present-day impatience20 to obtain desired results by the shortest and most effective method may lead to the sacrifice of a principle of vast importance.
“The men who framed the Constitution were well advised when they sought to preserve the integrity of the states as a barrier against the aggressions and tyranny of the majority acting21 through a centralized power. The words ‘state sovereignty’ acquired an odious22 significance in the days of our civil struggle, but the idea for which they stand is nevertheless a precious one and represents what is probably America’s most valuable contribution to the science of government.
“We shall do well not to forget the words of that staunch upholder of national power and authority, Salmon23 P. Chase,122 speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme24 Court in a famous case growing out of the Civil War:
“‘The preservation25 of the states, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the union and the maintenance of the National Government. The Constitution in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible union composed of indestructible states.’”
Yet today what do we find? The States renouncing26 their sovereignty, abrogating27 their authority to the central government, time and again diminishing their own strength, losing sight of one of the very things on which the safety of our country depends. Worse than that, some of them have attempted to pass laws which seem totally unnecessary, in the light of the already rigid28 Volstead Act. Witness the State of New Jersey29, for instance, with the iniquitous30 Van Ness Act, which, fortunately, was deemed unconstitutional.
Early in 1921, Mrs. Frank W. Van Ness, while a member of the New Jersey Assembly from Essex County, of which Newark is the county seat, introduced the act which provided that “whenever a complaint is made before any magistrate31 that a person has violated one or more of the provisions of this act, it shall be the duty of such magistrate, and every such magistrate is hereby given full power and authority to issue his warrant to arrest any such person so complained against, and, summarily, without a jury and without any pleadings, to try the person123 so arrested and brought before him and to determine and adjudge his guilt9 or innocence32.”
The Volstead Act plainly states that anyone violating the provisions of that act is guilty of a crime. Mrs. Van Ness’s Act was an attempt to have such persons, in the State of New Jersey, guilty of disorderly conduct, which would not require a trial by jury.
The New Jersey Legislature passed the Van Ness Act, and other State prohibition33 laws, at its session of 1921; but on February 2, 1922, the Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey held that a number of the provisions of the Van Ness Act were unconstitutional. The prevailing34 opinion was written by Chancellor35 Walker, but there was a difference among the judges as to the constitutionality of some of the different provisions of the act, and other opinions were also written. The Court of Errors and Appeals is the Court of last resort in New Jersey, and by its judgment36 it reversed the Supreme Court finding which had theretofore held the Van Ness Act to be constitutional.
Mrs. Van Ness was a candidate for re?lection in the fall of 1921, but was not re?lected. Is there no significance in this fact?
As old as Magna Charta is the right of any citizen to a trial by jury, when convicted of a crime; and as old, too, as that sacred document, is the theory that one is innocent until proved guilty. Yet the Volstead Act has paved the way for politicians124 without vision to seek to destroy these inalienable rights.
“Where there is no vision, the people perish.”
Among other things, in the opinion handed down in 1922, Chancellor Walker wrote:
“The act entitled ‘An act concerning intoxicating37 liquors used or to be used for beverage38 purposes,’ passed March 29, 1921, the short title of which is ‘Prohibition Enforcement Act,’ commonly called the Van Ness Act, authorizing39 convictions for violation of its provisions by magistrates40 without trial by jury, violates Article 1, Sec. 7, of the Constitution of New Jersey, 1844, which provides, inter14 alia, that the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate41; and also Id. Sec. 9, which provides, inter alia, that no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense42 unless upon the presentment or indictment43 of a grand jury.”
And another judge rendered this opinion:
“The Van Ness Act is invalid44 to the extent that it makes violations45 of its provisions disorderly acts as distinguished46 from those which are criminal in their nature because, prior to its enactment47, the Congress of the United States had already declared by necessary implication in the federal statute48, commonly known as the Volstead Act, that a person who violated any provision of the Eighteenth Amendment15 to the Federal Constitution, should be guilty of crime.”
The constitutional provision in the State of New Jersey has long been known to be as follows:
“The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate; but the legislature may authorize49 the trial of civil suits, when125 the matter in dispute does not exceed fifty dollars, by a jury of six men.”
“And ... the inestimable right of trial by jury shall remain confirmed as part of the law of this colony, without repeal51, forever.”
But though the Van Ness Act was declared unconstitutional the work of suppression went on. The Hobert Act took its place. The Association Against the Prohibition Amendment (New Jersey branch) protested to Governor Edwards when the Bill was passed. They pointed out that Chancellor Walker, in his opinion in the Court of Errors and Appeals, on page 18 of the decision dated February 2, 1922, had said:
“New Jersey need not have passed any enforcement act and could have left the field wholly to Federal endeavor under the Volstead Act.”
They likewise pointed out that there were no advantages whatsoever52 to the State of New Jersey proceeding53 from such an act; but the disadvantages were numerous and severe. It put upon the State courts all the work, and upon the citizens of the State all the expense of enforcing the national law. They also showed how tyrannical the Act was in certain sections. Section 16 reads as follows:
126
“Any officer engaged in the enforcement of this act who shall search any private dwelling54, as herein defined, which is occupied as such dwelling, without a warrant directing such search, or who, while so engaged, shall, without a search warrant, maliciously55 and without reasonable cause search any other building or property, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished for a first offense by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, and for a subsequent offense by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment56 for not more than one year or by both such fine and imprisonment.”
It was shown that this section had been taken, word for word, from the Amendment, forced upon the United States Senate by the House in the Willis-Campbell Bill and passed by the Senate on November 18, 1921. The Stanley Amendment originally offered in the Senate for the purpose of serving as an enforcement act to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution was passed unanimously by the Senate after a thorough investigation57 and after having been accepted by Senator Sterling58 who had charge of the Bill. The House refused to accept the Amendment and put into the Bill the following section:
“That any officer, agent, or employee of the United States engaged in the enforcement of this act, of the national prohibition act, or any other law of the United States, who shall search any private dwelling as defined in the national prohibition act and occupied as such dwelling, without a warrant directing such a search, or who while so engaged shall without a search warrant maliciously and127 without reasonable cause search any other building or property shall be guilty of a misdemeanor,” etc., etc.
Senator Ashurst, of Arizona, a dry Senator, and one who said he had never cast a wet vote in his life, refused to sign the conference report on the ground that the language of this section did not protect the people in their rights. He was joined by other dry Senators for the same reason. Senator Reed, of Missouri, than whom there is no greater Constitutional lawyer in the United States, in calling attention to the words, “shall without a search warrant maliciously and without reasonable cause,” had this to say:
“What is the plain inference to be drawn59 from that language? First, you must have a warrant to search the house. Second, if while you are searching the house you proceed without a warrant to search the other building or property you are not guilty of offense unless two things concur60: First, you must have been without any reasonable cause to search the other buildings or property, and, second, you must have acted maliciously. Notice the language. It is worth your while. You are legislating61 for 110,000,000 people and you are putting this authority into the hands of irresponsible men, proceeding without bond, armed with big guns, and sent out among the people.”
The Hobert Bill invites Prohibition agents and officers to go anywhere they desire without a search warrant, with the absolute assurance that in their unlawful occupation they are immune under the law. “Malice” is the most difficult thing in the world to128 prove—with the possible exception of “without reasonable cause.”
As a friend of mine, William L. Fish, says, “The Van Ness Act was the Bill Sykes of legislation, while the Hobert Act is the Iago.” Between two such arch villains62 there is little choice. We are not reforming the country, but deforming63 it.
If the people are to lose such cherished rights, there is little hope for America. Blind indeed are those who cannot read the writing on the wall. Surely there must come a reaction against such intolerable legislation.
Already one senses a change of feeling; for millions of us cannot be wrong when we claim that disregard of the laws of the land is as serious a problem as the old problem of the corner saloon. If, in correcting one evil, we bring to life greater evils, are we on the right track?
Solemnly up and down that room the officer walked, glancing here and there, after the manner of a soldier in the late war standing64 guard over military prisoners.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
penal
|
|
| adj.刑罚的；刑法上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
Amended
|
|
| adj. 修正的 动词amend的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
bartered
|
|
| v.作物物交换，以货换货( barter的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
violation
|
|
| n.违反(行为)，违背(行为)，侵犯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
lawfully
|
|
| adv.守法地，合法地；合理地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
defendant
|
|
| n.被告；adj.处于被告地位的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
guilt
|
|
| n.犯罪；内疚；过失，罪责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
flask
|
|
| n.瓶，火药筒，砂箱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
purveyor
|
|
| n.承办商，伙食承办商 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
paraphrase
|
|
| vt.将…释义，改写；n.释义，意义 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
remarkably
|
|
| ad.不同寻常地，相当地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
inter
|
|
| v.埋葬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
amendment
|
|
| n.改正，修正，改善，修正案 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
amendments
|
|
| （法律、文件的）改动( amendment的名词复数 )； 修正案； 修改； （美国宪法的）修正案 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
addenda
|
|
| n.附录，附加物；附加物( addendum的名词复数 )；补遗；附录；（齿轮的）齿顶（高） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
expediency
|
|
| n.适宜；方便；合算；利己 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
impatience
|
|
| n.不耐烦，急躁 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
odious
|
|
| adj.可憎的，讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
salmon
|
|
| n.鲑，大马哈鱼，橙红色的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
preservation
|
|
| n.保护，维护，保存，保留，保持 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
renouncing
|
|
| v.声明放弃( renounce的现在分词 )；宣布放弃；宣布与…决裂；宣布摒弃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
abrogating
|
|
| 废除（法律等）( abrogate的现在分词 )； 取消； 去掉； 抛开 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
rigid
|
|
| adj.严格的，死板的；刚硬的，僵硬的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
jersey
|
|
| n.运动衫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
iniquitous
|
|
| adj.不公正的；邪恶的；高得出奇的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
magistrate
|
|
| n.地方行政官，地方法官，治安官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
innocence
|
|
| n.无罪；天真；无害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
prohibition
|
|
| n.禁止；禁令，禁律 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
prevailing
|
|
| adj.盛行的；占优势的；主要的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
chancellor
|
|
| n.(英)大臣；法官；(德、奥)总理；大学校长 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
intoxicating
|
|
| a. 醉人的,使人兴奋的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
beverage
|
|
| n.(水，酒等之外的)饮料 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
authorizing
|
|
| 授权，批准，委托( authorize的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
magistrates
|
|
| 地方法官，治安官( magistrate的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
inviolate
|
|
| adj.未亵渎的，未受侵犯的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
offense
|
|
| n.犯规，违法行为；冒犯，得罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
indictment
|
|
| n.起诉；诉状 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
invalid
|
|
| n.病人，伤残人；adj.有病的，伤残的；无效的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
violations
|
|
| 违反( violation的名词复数 )； 冒犯； 违反（行为、事例）； 强奸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
enactment
|
|
| n.演出，担任…角色；制订，通过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
statute
|
|
| n.成文法，法令，法规；章程，规则，条例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
authorize
|
|
| v.授权，委任；批准，认可 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
repeal
|
|
| n.废止，撤消；v.废止，撤消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
whatsoever
|
|
| adv.（用于否定句中以加强语气）任何；pron.无论什么 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
dwelling
|
|
| n.住宅，住所，寓所 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
maliciously
|
|
| adv.有敌意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
imprisonment
|
|
| n.关押，监禁，坐牢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
investigation
|
|
| n.调查，调查研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
sterling
|
|
| adj.英币的(纯粹的，货真价实的)；n.英国货币(英镑) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
concur
|
|
| v.同意，意见一致，互助，同时发生 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
legislating
|
|
| v.立法，制定法律( legislate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
villains
|
|
| n.恶棍( villain的名词复数 )；罪犯；（小说、戏剧等中的）反面人物；淘气鬼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
deforming
|
|
| 使变形，使残废，丑化( deform的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
standing
|
|
| n.持续，地位；adj.永久的，不动的，直立的，不流动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |