Martinsburg herald. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1881-1920, 1908-03-21
CANNOT STOP SHIPMENTS
A Legal Opinion On Liquor Bills
Made Up For The Senate.
M. RAYNER FOR TEMPERANCE
Constitution Prevents Passage Of
Laws TO Stop Interstate Traffic
N Wfiskey.

-
| Washington. sfarch 1G-Asked tc
| give an analysis Of the situation in
lregard 10 the Interstate Liquor bill
which has now been before the senate
| judiciary committee for three. months
and IN charge of Subcommittee Of
4 fiye members Of that committee. Of
which Senator Rayner, OF Maryland
is member and Senator Knox rs
chairman, Senator Ravner said:
! = cannot give what has taken place
in The committee. Speaking for my.
self, am as strongly in favor OF TEN.
peranee as anyone in any community.
and would be willing to protect so
ciety IN any way could from the ey.
lis Of intemperance and the ruin and
havoc that it has caused.
THE question that l have examin-
ed, however, IS not one of policy at
! all. Il is one OF law strictly. ! am
satisfied that It is utterly impossible
for us to enact the legislation contem-
! plated by the bills before us in the
shape In which it is presented. II
must be understood that now the fed
! eral statute known as the Wilson law
! comes TO the aid of the state and pre-
! vents the sale of liquor shipped from
one state to another 1t is this federal
, law which has enabled the prohibition
states to carry out their own laws
j Whenever a state prohibits the sale
j of liquor congress has provided that
! the state law shall prevail, whether
the shipment is in the original pack
age or not.
impossible Under the Law.
What we are now asked to legis-
+, late about is the evasion of The Wilson
| aw. The advocates Of these measures
, claim that we must devise some meth
cd to keep the shipments from reach
ing bona ide consignee when it is
: intended for his own use or that of
his family. The trouble that have
encountered all through this examin-
alton of eases is that it is utterly inn
possible for us to pass such law.
The decisions of the supreme court
are against Il, shall quote one Of
Them
in Vance VS.. vandercook (170 q.
81, the supreme court says:
Indeed the law of the state here
under review does not purport to for
bid the shipment into the state from
other states of intoxicating liquor for
the use of resident, and, if it did so
il would, upon principe and under the
ruling in Scott VS. Mcdonald, to that
extent be in conflict with the constitu-
ton of the United States.
Il will give you an illustration that
has been put before us. Suppose a
state should pass penal law punish
ing the personal possession Of prohio.
tied liquor, and man living in this
state should order a case of Rhine
wine from an importer living in an
other state, These bills all require
us to pass a federal statute authoriz-
ing the states in such case to punish
he man for having the article in his
possession not for using it in a sa-
loon nor for selling it, because. as ri
say. we have covered this class Of
cases, but simply for receiving it for
/ his own personal use.
This is the ultimatum that has
| been presented TO us.
Believing in the doctrine of states
rights, as | do TO its utmost lawful
! limit, have not found case that
would permit us thus to abdicate the
! power of congress to regulate com
= merce and remit It to the states
Can't Stop Interstate Commerce.
Il have come to the conclusion that
while We might enact legislation that
would prevent the execution of a con
tract where it is intended to sell
! the liquor, and We might also pass
law to prevent its delivery to drunk
ards and minors and other persons
prohibited by the states from recely-
ing the same. that there is no way
whatever that we can accomplish the
purpose set forth in the senate bills
and give the states the right to break
bona fide contract between the
consignor in one state and the con-
, siGnee in another, which contract the
supreme court has said arises under
the constitution, and can only be per-
4 4