432 HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. [June 19, 
damage to the value of property on hand by reason of the preventing 
of sales. There is in the same year, 1856, a Connecticut case, * State 
vs. Wheeler, a law that in general terms prohibited entirely the sell- 
ing and keeping for sale of intoxicants to be used as a beverage is 
held valid and a proper exercise of the police power, notwithstanding 
any effect which it might have upon the value of property on hand 
or contracted for. 
> People vs. Gallagher, in gth Michigan, is to the same effect ; 
and also holds it doubtful whether a law is ever bad merely for 
contravening some general principle or constitutional right and not 
any express declaration of the constitution. This case shows how 
thoroughly the courts were prepared to enforce common-law doc- 
trines and follow precedents formed under a legislature which 
recognized no express limits to its powers. 
It is interesting to compare these decisions with another of the 
same period in regard to the constitutional provision that property 
should not be taken away without due process of law, and see the 
way in which this ancient provision was transferred from its old office 
of limiting the action of the executive to its American one of an- 
swering alike purpose with regard to the legislature. The case is that 
of ? Murray vs. Hoboken Land, Etc., Company, decided in 1855 
in an opinion by Justice Curtis. 
Collector of Customs Swartwout, of New York, had been found 
in 1838 nearly a million and a half of dollars in default in his 
accounts with the federal government. A distress warrant had 
during that year been issued against his property by the solicitor of 
the treasury and levied upon his lands. The lands were in June, 
1839, sold by the United States marshal to the defendant com- 
pany. In the meantime certain other creditors of his procured 
judgments and had levied executions on the same land in April 
before. 
They claimed the levy and the sale under the distress warrant 
was void and proceeded to sell under their execution to the plain- 
tiff Murray who then brought an action of ejectment, claiming that 
a sale under a mere distress warrant from the treasury was not due 
process of law, and that the constitution of the United States 
vested the judicial power of the federal government ‘‘in one 
Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress may from time 
1 25 Conn., 290. 24 Mich, 244. 8 18. How'., 272. 
