Tlie Liquor Question. 



153 



his faculties and to follow a lawful avocation for the support of life; 

 the right of property, the right to acquire, possess and enjoy it in any 

 way consistent with the equal rights of others, and the just exactions 

 and demands of the State." In People v. Otis, 90 N. Y. 48, the same 

 judge says: "Depriving an owner of property of one of its attri- 

 butes is depriving him of his property within the constitutional 

 provision." 



Miller, J., in Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 177, says: 

 "There may be such serious interruption to the common and necessary 

 use of property as will be equivalent to a taking within the meaning 

 of the Constitution." Earl, J., In re Jacobs, 98 N. Y. 98-105, says: 

 "The constitutional guaranty that no person shall be deprived of 

 his property without due process of law may be violated without the 

 physical taking of property for public or private use. Property may 

 be destroyed or its value may be annihilated; it is owned and kept for 

 some useful- purpose and it has no value unless it can be used. Its 

 capability for enjoyment and adaptability to some use are essential 

 characteristics and attributes, without which property cannot be con- 

 ceived; and hence any law which destroys it or its value, or takes away 

 any of its essential attributes, deprives the owner of his property." 

 Eapallo, J., in People v. Marx, 99 N. Y. 377-386, says: "No 

 proposition Is now more firmly settled than that it is one of the funda- 

 mental rights and privileges of every American citizen to adopt and 

 follow such lawful industrial pursuit, not injurious to the community, 

 as he may see fit." 



You will readily perceive that the "liberty" of the Constitution is 

 not limited to immunity from actual imprisonment, nor is the 

 "property" clause thereof to the physical destruction or annihilation 

 of the substance. These are conclusions now so perfectly well settled 

 by the current of judicial authority, as to remove them from the sub- 

 ject of controversy. 



Our next inquiry arises upon the effect of the qualifying words in 

 this constitutional provision, "no person shall be deprived of life, 

 liberty or property without due process of law." Conversely, if by " due 

 course of law," it be necessary or proper to deprive a person of his 

 life, or of his liberty, or of his property, then either may be sacrificed. 

 In the case of Westervelt v. Gregg, 12 N". Y. 209, our Court of Ap- 

 peals held: " Due process of law undoubtedly means in the due course 

 of legal proceedings, according to those rules and forms which have 

 been established for the protection of private rights. Such an act as 

 the Legislature may, in the uncontrolled exercise of its power, think 



