State v. Grier
Decision Date | 08 October 1913 |
Citation | 27 Del. 322,88 A. 579 |
Court | Court of General Sessions of Delaware |
Parties | STATE v. WILLIAM GRIER |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Court of General Sessions, Sussex County, October Term, 1913.
INDICTMENT (No. 9, June Term, 1913) for the violation of Chapter 139 Volume 27, Laws of Delaware, 340, known as the "Hazel Law", by bringing as agent of a certain liquor dealer in the City of Philadelphia and State of Pennsylvania, into local option territory within the State of Delaware, to wit Sussex County, two quarts of spirituous liquor, to wit, whisky, purchased by a resident of said county.
Case heard upon agreed statement of facts. (See State v. Van Winkle, post, also 88 A. 807.)
Verdict, guilty.
Josiah O. Wolcott, Attorney General, Armon D. Chaytor, Jr., and Frank M. Jones, Deputies Attorney General, for the State.
Daniel O. Hastings and Herbert H. Ward for defendant.
OPINION
Before delivering the opinion, the court made the following preliminary statement:
The court is prepared to announce its decision upon the questions raised in the above stated case and argued at the last term, but before reading the opinion I wish to say, speaking for every member of the court, that nothing which may have been said by any one outside of this room, or since the argument, has had the slightest influence upon us in reaching our decision. It may be entirely unnecessary to make this statement, and it would not be made except for the newspaper controversy that has been recently engaged in respecting this case.
We wish to say that our decision was reached, and the opinion I am about to read was entirely prepared, at least a month ago, and before said controversy began in the public press.
And inasmuch as there seems to be some misconception as to the proper function and duty of the court in deciding a case of such general interest as the present one, we desire to make this further statement: This case must be determined like any other that comes before us; that is, according to what we believe to be the law. Indeed, we have no discretion, and but one duty, which is to declare the law as we understand it. We do not make the law and have no power or right to unmake it if it was constitutionally enacted. Under our system of government the Legislature is the sole judge of what are proper subjects of legislation, subject only to constitutional limitations; and the necessity and wisdom of any particular act cannot be reviewed by the court-- it is exclusively for the law-making body to decide.
What we desire to make plain is this: That the court in passing upon the validity of a statute has no discretion at all; it cannot say whether it was wise or unwise, necessary or unnecessary, proper or improper. With the wisdom, necessity or propriety of legislation we can have nothing whatever to do under our judicial oaths. The power or authority of the Legislature to pass the statute is the only question for the consideration of the court; and if the power is found to exist under the law, it absolutely controls the court. This statement has been made in order that every one may clearly understand that our duties are judicial and not legislative, and that we dare not encroach upon the prerogatives of the law-making body which is a co-ordinate branch of the state government.
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
The General Assembly of this state at its last session (1913) enacted the following statute, commonly known as the "Hazel Law", which was approved, viz.:
Act April 8, 1913 (27 Del. Laws, c. 139).
At the June Term (1913) of the Court of General Sessions, in and for Sussex County, one William Grier was indicted for the violation of said statute, the indictment being in the following words:
"The grand inquest for the State of Delaware, and the body of Sussex County, on their oath and affirmation respectively, do present, That William Grier late of Georgetown Hundred, in the county aforesaid, on the seventeenth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirteen, with force and arms, at Georgetown Hundred, in the county aforesaid, he, the said William Grier, then and there being agent of a certain Tony Kayser, of the City of Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania, the said Tony Kayser then being a person engaged in the sale of spirituous liquor, did, by a certain means of transportation, to wit, by a certain railroad train operated within the State of Delaware by Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington Railroad Company, bring from New Castle County in the State of Delaware into local option territory within the said State of Delaware, to wit, into Sussex County aforesaid, two quarts of certain spirituous liquor, to wit, whisky, and did then and there deliver the said spirituous liquor so brought into local option territory as aforesaid to one Harley J. Conaway, the said Harley J. Conaway having theretofore purchased the said spirituous liquor from the said Tony Kayser for the sum of two dollars, lawful money of the United States of America, against the form of the Act of the General Assembly in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State."
In order to test the validity of the statute, and secure from the courts a decision of the several questions that might be raised respecting its constitutionality, the following case stated was agreed upon by and between the state and the defendant, and filed, by leave of the court, on the ninth day of July, 1913:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex Parte Francis
...The statute has appropriate relation to a purpose within the police power of the state; it does not arbitrarily discriminate (4 Boyce [Del.] 322, 88 A. 579; Boyce [Del.] 578, 91 A. 385, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 104); and interstate commerce is not unlawfully involved. See Southern Express Co. v. Wh......
-
American Express Co. v. Beer
...In further support of the foregoing views, we refer to the masterly opinion of the court of general sessions of Delaware in State v. Grier, 27 Del. 322, 88 A. 579. decree of the court below will be reversed, and decree entered here sustaining the demurrer, dissolving the injunction, and dis......
-
State v. Caruso
... ... legislation that are being considered, in order that they may ... have an opportunity of being heard thereon by petition or ... otherwise, if they shall so desire." Equitable ... Guarantee & Trust Co. v. Donahoe, 19 Del. 191, 3 Penne ... 191, 49 A. 372, 373; State v. Grier, 27 Del. 322, 4 ... Boyce 322, 88 A. 579; Wilmington Trust Co. v ... Highfield, 4 W. W. Harr. (34 Del. ) ... 394, 153 A. 864; In re Cypress Farms Ditch, 7 W ... W. Harr. (37 Del. ) 71, 180 A. 536 ... In ... State v. Grier, supra [4 Boyce 322, 88 A ... 586], the ... ...
-
Adams Express Co. v. Commonwealth
...92 Kan. 212, 139 P. 1169; American Express Co. v. Beer (Miss.) 65 So. 575; Southern Express Co. v. State (Ala.) 66 So. 115; State v. Grier (Del. Gen. Sess.) 88 A. 579. therefore, conclude that the act is valid. The next question is: Do the agreed facts show the defendant to be guilty, and w......