The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1909-07-20

preventing well known lawbreakers
from continuing their trade.
A minority, consisting of Justices Den
son and Mcclellan, say that an ordinance
prohibiting the storage of liquor where
beverages are kept for SALE Is good
ordinance and should be upheld. Justice
Jackson says the ordinance Is good one.
He was the judge of the lower court be-
fore whom the case was tried, knows all
the circumstances, Is an able lawyer and
a conscientious judge. Solicitor Perry, a
good lawyer and fearless official, says
the ordinance is good. Judge Weakley,
ex-chief justice Of the supreme court,
says the ordinance is good one.
think the majority of the supreme court
in error when they make the ruling they
do as to the storage of liquors in this
city.
Having voted for the members of the
supreme court 1 think 1 have the right
to express an opinion as to their acts.
I do not know any more about law
than do many others who have discussed
this question, but common sense tells me
that no man has any use privately for n
wagon load of whisky and beer delivered
at the back door of business house He
could not drink 1t in a year or two and
the possession of 1t taken In connection
with all the circumstances Is proof posi-
tive to me that he is either engaged in
the selling or giving away liquor out
side OF his home, which is in violation
of the law more especially when in adj
dition to the above evidence men are
met coming out of his place of business
with the smell of liquor on them, when
drunken men are traced back to his place
of business and when he has secured
from the internal revenue office a license
as retail dealer in liquor.
Now, a majority of the supreme court
says man can store liquor on his
premises, but they also say he cannot
sell it.
Even while expressing my doubt of the
correctness of the decision, l have to say
that If those who so suddenly find them
selves in a frenzy of patriotism defending
the court would respect that court by
obeying its decision on all other points of
the law, there would be no cause for
disturbance of any kind. The majority
of the court says that liquor may be
stored but cannot be sold.
Let those who have 1t stored keep II
stored and quit distributing 1t and selling
it, and the friends of law will have no
complaint to make.
You say prohibition does not prohibit.
If not, why not?
1t has prohibited me from buying
spirituous, vinous or malt liquors in Bes-
semer or birmingham since the law went
into effect.
I know how refreshing a bottle of cold
beer on hot day is, and also the COM
Portable feeling resulting from a cocktail
or long toddy, but | have not wanted
either badly enough to steal one. or to
ask someone else to break the law that
/ might f1r one (May God help the
man whose appetite has gotten beyond
his control)
1t is against the law to steal. and 1t is
as much against the law In this state to
sell liquor or to give 1t away outside Of
ones own home.
A self-respecting man will not break
the law himself, nor simply for the gratfi-
cation of his own appetite induce someone
else to break it for him, particularly If
that someone else happens to be lower
in the scale of morals, or Of less mental
capacity than himself.
The law does prohibit law-abiding citi-
zens from selling liquor and proper
conception of morals prevents others from