The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1909-07-01
NOT UNLAWFUL
T0KEEP LIQUORS
KNOCKERS

! (Continssa from Page one.)
therefore, the statute prohibiting such
keeping In possession II not q legiti-
mate exertfon Of the police power. It
10 an abridgement Of the privileges
ana immunities Of the citizen without
any legal Justification, and therefore
void" And later on: From what we
have already said, II is apparent that
the provision of the statute under
consideration lie not fair and reas-
enable exercise OF the police power,
nor has It any reference to the pro-
hibftfon or sale of liquors. It is sim
| ply an attempt to make the possession
OF liquor for any purpose q crime.
"A very different question would be
presented II the act had made II un-
lawful Tor any person to keep intox-
icating liquors In his possession, either
for himself or for another. for the pur-
pose of selling It. or as device to
| evade the revenue laws" In the case
OF State vs.. Williams. 146 N. c.. 61s.
the court had under consideration a
| local prohibition statute for the county
of Burke. which. after declaring II to
be unlawful to manufacture. sell. or
| otherwise dispose of liquors in the
county named. provided as follows:
1T shall be further unlawful for any
person. except as druggist, for med
teal purposes. as aforesaid. to bring
| into said county of Burke, In any one
day. more than one-half gallon OF such
spirituous. vinous or malt liquors"
The court announced its opinion in the
following language: Chapter sos of
the laws Of 1907, prohibiting any per-
4 son from carrying into the county of
Burke In any one day more than one
half gallon of vinous. spirituous or
malt liquor, Is not valid exercise Of
r. -It g. I..r--
restricts the right Of the citizen to
the use Of his property, without any
intent to violate any prohibited act in
relation to 1t; that the carrying into
| the county of Burke of the prohibited
| quantity has no reasonable. substan-
tial relation to the sale Of liquors as
| prohibited by law"
| I'VE indulge in one further quota
tion. from high authority. as succinct-
ly stating the limitation upon the
Legislature in the exercises of the po-
lice power: Tt does not at all follow
that every statute enacted ostensibly
for the promotion of these ends IL to
be accepted as legitimate exercise
| of the police power OF the State.
There are. of necessity. limits beyond
which legislation cannot rightfully
go. . II, therefore. a statute pur-
porting to have been enacted to pro-
tect the public health, the public NOR
ais or the public safety has no real
or substantial relation to these OBJ
jects. or In palpable invasion of
rights secured by the fundamental
| law, 1t Is the duty of the courts so
to adjudge. and thereby give effect to
the Constitution Mugl~ VS.. Gansas,
| 1913 U. S.. 623.
such are the limitations upon the
Legislature in the exercise of the po-
| lice power which must be observed
In the consideration of this case. There
| Is no attack here upon any statutory
enactment of the Legislature. But
the principle to be gathered from the
cases considered applies with equal
| nances, which must be enacted in pur-
suance of a delegated legislative au-
| thority
Municipal corporations in this State
have power to adopt ordinances not
| inconsistent with the laws of the
State, to provide for the safety, pre-
serve the health, promote the pros
perity, improve the morals, order COM
fort and convenience of the inhabi-
tants OF the municipality. Code, Section
1851. 1t must be conceded that they
may pass ordinances In accord with
the general prohibition law of the
State. ordinances, TO prevent evasions
thereof by trick, artifice. or subter-
fuge. and ordinances making 1t an
offense to keep intoxicating liquors
and beverages In any place. public or
private, with intent to sell or dispose
of them in violation of law. all such
being In eonsonance with the law and
policy Of the State, and fairly implied
in the broad grant of powers enum-
Grated.
II Not An Offense.
"The ordinance in question does not
make an offense against the munich
pality of those acts which are de-
nounced by the law Of the State. nor
does 1t create the separate ami distinct
offense of having or keeping liquors
and intoxicating beverages with the
unlawful intent. 1t can be justified
only, II at all. on the ground that 1t
sustains some reasonable relation to
the prohibition law in the way of pre-
venting evasions Of that law by trick.
artifice or subterfuge under guise OF
which that law is violated But 1t
has no such relation. 1t undertakes
to prohibit the keeping in any guam
ttty and for any purpose. however in
nocent. or intoxicating liquors and
beverages in places which are inno-
cent in themselves. Under the evil
dence a Keeping with innocent pur-
pose is as much an offense as a keep
ing with purpose to violate the law.
The ordinance Is no more, to be sus-
tanned than If 1t had said:
"No man shall keep for his own
use intoxicating liquors or beverages
in any place where any drinks or bev-
erages, though entirely free of alcohol,
II the keeping for ones own use, and
with no, purpose to violate the law,
may be prohibited in such places the
prohibition against keeping without
unlawful purpose may as well be ex-
tended to a keeping at any place
where men are, many or few, with
result that vinous. spirituous and malt
liquors must indeed be classified with
burglars tools, the keeping of which
with innocent purpose, we remark
has never been prohibited, lottery
| tickets, infected clothing. and dis
eased animals; and the constitutional
and legislative recognition of property
rights and personal liberty held for
naught
THE ordinance under which the
appellant was convicted is void, and
the appellant must be discharged.