University of South Carolina Libraries
One Gallon a I Beh Constitutionality of General Peeples and eral Dominick in th( haustive Review < of All the Stai Bearing < (Continued morals, or safety of the pi for it only transfers the pos The fact is that the harm c sale, but in the consumptio people of Idaho, acting thr eradicate, and since 'it will that, if the citizcn may be his possession, he can be pre necessity, no one can drint session.' and since ?*reat di forcing the prohibitory law: jurist in the case of Mugh manufacture of intoxicatin as a beverage, might well b which would make it real: " 'And so, if in the judg sion of intoxicating liquors if it did not defeat the eff( the evils attending the exce< the Courts, upon their viev the community, to disrega that question.' "We have reached the contravention of Section i the Constitution of the Uni of the Constitution of Idah lature with a view to the public morals, and the publ stantial relation to those < reasonable exercise of the p WE! Counsel for appellant ii hearing- contended that un exists in the United States, of the adult citizen not un< government, and that certa: Virginia amendatory statul in violation of the fundarru and Federal Constitutions; contention against the statul a ? i~\unjug uuiti ov^m they cited State z\ Gilman, the decision of the highest prescribed a rule of constr &iate which should be adop The Gilman case was de stitution of 1912 in the f passed, regulating or prohib - - - - - i* .? /-?* within the limits ol this M decision was a correct cor Constitution, it must be noi ive July 1st, 1914, entirely in West Virginia in respect In State v. Si.ro, 2895, Appeals of West Virginia ported), the Court took occ say of. the case of State v. ? ?? ? -j * J. proposition tnar a stature o tional and void "under the further, used the following. "Since the case of State tution of the State has be amended prohibits the ma: malt, vinous and spirituous islature to 1 enact such lazvs rities, and penalties as math e provision of this section ive July i, 1914. It is th< such laws as may be necess; of the Constitution as amei to this provision of the G require liquors brought im place to another within the Ion or more, to be 7narked is a wise policy is not for Legislature has not e.rcced interfere. The Courts may latnre had the power to es can not prescribe the policy, zvould be to subordinate t ? _ r , 7 _ _ yy opinion oj inc c ouris. The Court then cited tli Co. z\ Lynch, 226 U. S. 15 with a recognized evil whict measures having- reasonable inhibited transaction separat The Court therefore took a Constitution of West Yirg in the Oilman case of the C Furthermore, in State v. Virginia Court, November vision against advertising valid under the amended C that Section 8 of the Yosi "privileges or immunities" ment to the United States C It must be evident, thei ? Month Law yre Supreme Court Law Argued by Attorney Assistant Attorney Gen2 Supreme Court?An Exit the Prohibition Law tes and Cities Cases on the Subject. From Last Issue.) ibh\.' the sale is equally harmless; ;session from one person to another, onsists neither in the possession nor n of it. That is the evil which the ough the Legislature, are trying to not require any elucidation to show ' prohibited from having liquor in jhibited from drinking it, because of : that which he has not in his posfikultv has been encountered in en5, the statement made by the learned cr v. Kansas, supra, relative to the g liquors for the maker's own use, e said with respect to its possession, jnent of the Legislature, the posses* * * would tend to cripple, )rt to guard the community against >sive use of such liquors, it is not for ys as to what is best and safest for rd the legislative determination of conclusion that this Act is not in of the Fourteenth Amendment to nr*r of Sfrfinn T"2. Art. 1 io; that it was passed by the Legisprotection of the public health, the ic safety; that it has a real and subobjects; and that it is, therefore a olice power of the State.'' 5T VIRGINIA. i their reply brief upon the former der constitutional government as it the regulation of the personal habits der a disability is not a function of in regulations proposed by the West te, approved February 5, 1915, arc intal law as set forth in both iState they will no doubt make the same :e of May 24th, 1915. e of which we have already noticed, 33 W. Va. 146, and contended that Court of West Virginia in said case uction for the Constitution of that )ted here. cided under a provision of the Con'ollo wing words: "Laws shall be iting the sale of intoxicating liquors :ate." Without conceding that the istruction of that provision of the at said that the Amendment, effect changed the constitutional.situation to the subject matter in hand, decided by the Supreme Court of November 30th, 1915 (not yet reasion to refer to this change and to Gilmm, that it is authority for the f the kind involved was unconstitu' Constitution then in forceand language: v. Gihnan was decided, the Constien amended. The Constitution as nufacture and keeping for sale of liquors, etc., and requires the Leg, with regulations, conditions, secu1' be necessary to carry into effect i.' This amendment became cffecti duty of the Legislature to enact ary to n. ' e effective this provision tided. The Legislature, responsive Dnstitution, has deemed it wise to to the State, or carried from one State, in quantities of one-half galor labeled. Whether or not this the Courts to determine. Jf the ed its pozvers, the Courts can not ' decide zvhether or not the Legistablish these regulations, but they if within the legislative limits; this he will of the Legislature to the . ! ie case of Purity Extract & Tonic j 2, holding- that a State, in dealing 1 it is free to suppress, might adopt relation to that end, although the j :ely considered might be innocuous. | much broader view of the present inia than was taken by the Court onstitution of T912. . Davis, 2864, decided by the West 30th, 1915, it was held that a proliquors, under the Yost Act, was Constitution of West Virginia and c Act of 1913 did not violate the clause of the Fourteenth Amendronstitution. -efore, that the Gil man case is no longer to be deemed an author: broader Held for legislative actior tained in the W est Virginia I doubt it was bcausc of the narro ginia Court in the Gil man ease framed flint the Legislature, w I "to enact such laws, with reg | and penalties, as may be necessa ! vision of the section." i As to the decision in the Gihti | was offensive to the Fourteent i Constitution, we must say that Court was too narrow and henc subsequent decisions of the Supr j which will be followed here. Nezi' Vnrk v. Hcstcrbcrg, 21 Patsonc v. Pcnn., 232 V. S Purity Ex. & T. Co. v. Lyn Hugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S It thus appears that three ca in litigation of this character, appellant's counsel in their for explained and limited by the C< that appellant's counsel can nc sistaince as authorities: since cause: that is to say. Ridge v. ( S has been superseded by Southa | So. Rep. 652; State JVilliau, ! nlainprl. limited mid sunerseded Co. (N. C). decided December 33 W. Ya. T46, lias been explai the cases of State v. Si.vo and supra. 6?CASES FROM KENTUCKY KENT We need only refer to the K bell. 133 Ky. 50, 24 L. R. A. 1 from that State but follow the 1 case shows very plainly that ! the construction which the Co i placed upon certain sections of Court saying expressly, it coul of the Constitution intended to lature the power to regulate th with that department of the !. power of prohibiting the posses The Court further said that Constitution, containing u bill c Court set forth, the guarantie: empty sound, if the Legislatur right to own or drink liquor wh the laws of decency by being in the Court seeming to be that a enjoy the inalienable rights dec he were permitted freely to bee to there consume intoxicating The decision of the Kentuck visions of the State Constitutic row view of the police power unsafe guide to this Court in c tion of West Virginia establish that State, and conferring upoi pass all laws necessary to make The further general remarl the rights of man in his natural over the individual, are clearb - declared by this Court in the ca< ley v. Christensen, Purity Exti Holden v. Hardy, which have s The Kentucky Court in the a potent force of the Constitut was composed of those engaged ing and selling liquors. It coi Virginia Prohibitory Amendme persons engaged in the liquor tr nnnrvcprl tn trsffir' ^nrl Vif>n1 kllV, VI U4A1V UiiVl WViil West Virginia; the Amendmen | ture ample power to enact all the desired end. OK LAI] The case of Ex parte Wilson I UTAO 4- ^ frv1lAit?n/l 1 n f Wets CJLICU UllL 1IUI MI I 151 Pac. 1006; we deem it prof the decision. The case was decided Decern sage of the Webb-Kenyon Act. The agreed facts were that had been engaged in the livery ! foe had there in his possession c of liquor shipped to him from F use, in excess of the quantity f citizen of Oklahoma by the stat Court. p Under these facts, it is tru properly convicted, for the reasc of the opinion based upon the cai I/O U. S. 438, which held, undei 1 had the right to import liquor | delivered to him, and to keep ii was conclusive of the case and sider the statute of Oklahoma police power under the (Mate Cc Fourteenth Amendment to the 1 Tti cfor 5c tlir> rVviirf lipid interstate commerce) that the s Fourteenth Amendment, and to State Constitution, providing th; of life, liberty or property wit] decision was out of accord with the numerous authorities cited i The opinion is composed n which we have reviewed, and i largely influenced by the case ( itv here, in view of the much ! \ i under the grant of power conProhibitory Amendment. No' w view taken by the West Yir- j that the amendment was so | ithout delay, was commanded J illations, conditions, securities, I iry to carry into effect the pro- j i it.- \ 1 Ull LHSC UIclL II1C ill IJllCMlVll ;h Amendment of the Federal ! the view of the West Virginia e entirely out of harmony with erne Court of the United States, i u. S.31. 138ch, 226 U. S. 192. s ; ?23. ses which liave been often cited and which were relied on bv mer reply brief, have been so )urts in which said cases arose, > longer call them to their asthe former submission of this :iiy of Bessemer, 164 Ala, 599, 11 Ex. Co. v. Whittle (Ala.) 69 I < T a(\ \T ( " llOC KflOtl 0"V_ to, i _|A t . V^. V/ iUj ilci." UV.V11 v.-\ by the case of Glenn v. So. Ex. 1st, 1915 ; and State v. Gihnan, ned, limited and superseded by State i'. Daris, 2895 and 2864, AND OKLAHOMA REVIEWED. UCKY. Kentucky case of Com. v. Camp [iNS) 172, since the later cases earlier decision. The Campbell it was controlled primarily by urt of Appeals of Kentucky the Kentucky Constitution, the id not believe that the framers carefully take from the Legise sale of liquors, and yet leave State Government, the greater ;sion or ownership of liquor. : since the adoption of the then nnrVifc in larirrnofrA wViirti +1ia ii. i.w~ s to the citizen would be only e could prohibit the citizen the en in so doing he did not offend \toxicated in public, the view of citizen of Kentucky could not lared by the Constitution unless :onie intoxicated in private and liquors in unlimited quantities. :y Court, thus resting upon pro>n and upon an extremely nar of the State, would be a very onstruing the present Constituting State-wide Prohibition for 1 the Legislature full power to : the State's policy effective. <s in the Kentucky case about [ state, and the rights of society r antagonistic to the principles ;es of Muzlcr v. Kansas, Crozu 'act & Tonic Co. v Lynch and ill been cited and considered. Campbell case also noted-that :ional Convention of Kentucky in the business of manufactured not be said that the West :nt was inspired or adopted by affic, but rather by those totally t upon its utter destruction in t conferring upon the Legisla-1 laws necessary to accomplish [OMA. , 6 Okl. Cr. 451, 119 Pac. 596, he Idaho case, Ex parte Crane, >er, however, to briefly refer to ber 18th. iqii, prior to the pas the defendant for a long time business in Ardmore, and that n the dates alleged, a quantity ort Worth, Texas, for his own >ermitted to be possessed by a ute under consideration by the e that the defendant was im )ns stated in the last paragraph se of Vance v. Vandcrcook Co., r the Wilson Act, that a citizen from another State, to have it t for his own. use. This point there was no occasion to conas brought to the test of the institution, or to the test of the Federal Constitution. generally (without regard to tatute was offensive to the Section 7 of Article 2 of. the it "no person shall be deprived bout due process of law," the the principles referred to and n this brief. nostly of extracts from cases t is easy to see the Court was )f Bidge v. City of Bessemer,[ 164 Ala 599, and the eases thereir v. Williams, 146 X. C. 618, which ; applicable and to have been misunt In adopting" the view, furtherm the ()klahoma Court failed to tak tween the status of Kentucky anc was a .state-wide 1'roinDition >tati under statnates as well; whereas tl as construed by the Court of Ap no power in the hands of the Lei ! of liquors. Under the doctrine declared ii ! 19-. and in XIuglcr v. Kansas, I. Legislature clearly had the power tion as a means of enforcing- the ! and it was valid except in so far j interstate shipment, and since t ! "commerce clause" no longer pre In view of the decisions of the : States, and ui later decisions in c ! homa C ourt mainly found the aut | \vc confidently expcct, especially si Kenyon Law, that the Court will r case of Ex parte Wilson, supra, i forded it to more fully consider tl' 7.?THE WEBB-KEN YON LAW DOES ATI ON SHIPMENTS OF LIOU< LIQUOR IS INTENDED TO BE IX ANY MANNER USED CON STATE INTO WHICH THE INTRODUCED. The statement above plainly i of the terms of the Webb-Kenyor erence to the evil which the Act "history of the Act shows this to \ r* L r\o o 1 r\ * n .V* 1 c? 1 ociidLUi lvnuA oaiu in mo J ence to legislation concerning intei "Congressional expression in be an expression upon a subjec nothing to do, and upon it all would arise." As the Honorable A. Y. Web North Carolina, said in the Hous ruary 8th, 1913, in the debate upc ii? c\t i.1. _ ?l.i_ ii ine oiaies nave mc iigm, the personal use or receipt of liquo to take that right away from the 5 the State has no power under its stitution of the United States to o the personal use of liquor, then tl right, because the iState can never Page 2807, Vol. 49, Congressionz Furthermore, the record show bama offered an amendment, ma shipments for personal use, and 1 by the following vote: Yeas 55, Mr. Bartlett of Georgia propos "Provided, however, that noth or construed to render illegal or interstate shipment of liquors heri Territory or District to any one use." This was defeated by the folL r- / t~* ?_ \ 1107-?i rages zooo-u/.; Thereupon the House voted dc by Mr. Davis of West Virginia, a "But nothing in this Act con forbid the shipment or transportat malted, fermented, or other intoxi tended, for sacramental purposes o sumption of the owner or consigi Thereupon the bill passed the (p. 2867.) This record should remove all intent of Congress in enacting th deed any possible -doubt could ar the prohibition of the Act should e: for personal use, if any State s( wishes in a valid statute, falling w We will not extend this brief | several cases cited by and relied uj Palmer v. Express Co. (Tenn. Van Winkle v. Dclazvare, 91 1 Exp arte Pecde (Tex.), 170 S. Southern Express Co., v. Sta 188 Ala.454. Southern Ex. Co. v. City of H 2~A. %J I Bristol Dist. Co. v. So. Ex. Cc ginia, decided January 12, In those cases the shipments 1 were held not to be within the tern for the simple reason that there v the several States at that time, such character of shipments. v hv i~> c c Cn C\ < J. 11 I Ui//i't A U JL~* j' f t' o o v v . ^ jl was no limitation by the statute u number of shipments that might 1 though single shipments were for Ion; and the Court held that the r shipment was simply one of inters Mississippi Court sustained a simi press Co. v. Beer (Miss.), 56 iS< 1 *J_* 1 T> Detween tnc -Mississippi aim j em sequence here, as the two West V framed on entirely different lines. Furthermore, in Palmer v. Exp Ttfc iro1ir1if\r rvf tVi#? "WpKh-TCe U11V_ vcwavaacj- v*. ? i held inapplicable, because the shi and there was no State law againt What the Tennessee Court would (Continued on Pagi ) cited, among" others. State ] ippear now not to have been i :lerstood. lore, of the Kentucky Court. r.f flic, t] 1 -fTprpnpf I Vw U1 Cll* VllllV* V??VV - i 1 Oklahoma, since the latter [ L* under the Constitution and [ le Constitution of Kentucky, | peals of that State, had left j ^islature to regulate the sale * n the Lynch case, 226 U. S. 23 U. S. 623, the Oklahoma j to enact the statute in ques- I State-wide Prohibition law; as it might be applied to an he Webb-Kenyon Law the vents its complete operation. , Supreme Court of the United | >ther .'States where the Okla horities upon which it relied, nee the passage of the Webbecede from its decision in the f another opportunity be afie questions involved. NOT EXCLUDE FROM ITS OPER)R FOR PERSONAL USE, IF THE RECEIVED, POSSESSED, SOLD, OR TRARY TO THE LAWS Uf inc. LIQUOR IS SOUGHT TO BE "oilows from an examination i Act itself, construed in refvas intended to relieve. The be true. -eport to the Senate in referrstate commerce in liquors: favor of personal use would t with which Congress has sorts of confusing questions d, member of Congress from e of Representatives on Feb>n the'Webb-Kenyon Act: in the first place, to prohibit r, this Congress has no power On the other hand, if own constitution or the Conieprive a man of the right of lis law is harmless as to such take that right from him."? il Record. s that Mr. Blackmon of Alaking the Act inapplicable to the amendment was defeated i\'oes 149. (p. 2SO5.) ed the following amendment: ling in this Act shall be helq subject to iState control, the ein defined, into any State or : for his personal or family owing vote: Yeas 65, Noes )wn the amendment proposed s follows: tained shall be construed to ion of any spirituous, vinous, j eating liquor of any kind, inr for the personal use or conlee thereof." I House: Y.eas 239, Noes 64. doubt as to the purpose and e Webb-Kienyon Law, if inise. Congress intended that xclude from the State liquors 3 willed, and manifested its 'ithin the terms of the Act. by any detailed analysis of pon by appellant's counsel: ), i6s S. W. 236. Vtl. 385- ' w -749te (Ala.), 66 iSo. Rep. 115, igh Point (N. C.), 83 S. E. >. (Court of Appeals of Vir19150 which were for personal use< is of the Webb-Kenyon Act, /as no existing State law in which would be violated by >rm ^ tf\C ^ W oif\ thprp ^J " > * consideration upon the be obtained by a citizen, albidden ir* excess of one gal egulation as to the size of a 4-^ 4-s -v* o *- r? ?% ^ 1 f-Vl /"Mf rr1-? -fVl/r* Let Li. cuii.iin.1*.^, aii'?uugu lar statute, in American Ex). Rep 575. The difference uessee Courts if of no con 7irsrinia statutes of iqi; are I O ^ ^ ress Co. (Tenn.), 165 S. W. nyon Act was assumed, but pment was for personal use rf receiving stick a shipment. have held had the legislation g Three.) m k + m I m mN po r z> '' ?i? o ^ M IHBHH pfj Ui ' f i PI tj V i? A t77 o o