The Birmingham age-herald., 1909-07-02

out any legal justification, and therefore void.' And later on: From what we have already said it is apparent that the pro- vision of the statute under consideration is not a fair and reasonable exercise of the police power, nor has it any refer ence to the prohibition or sale of liquors. It is simply an attempt to make the pos- session of liquor for any purpose crime.
 "A very different question would be presented if the act had made 1t un- lawful for 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 a device to evade the revenue laws" In the case of State vs. Williams, 146 N. C.. 618, the court had under consideration a local prohibition statute for the county of Burke, which, after declaring 1t to be unlawful to manufacture, sell, or otherwise dispose of liquors in the county named provided as follows:
 Tt shall be further unlawful for any person, except as druggist, for med ical 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 it's opinion in the following language: Chapter 806 of the laws of 1907, prohibiting any per 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 a valid exercise of the police power. for that 1t unduly restricts the right of the citizen to tn euse of his property, without any intent to violate any prohibition act in relation to 1t; that the carrying into the county of Burke of the prohibited quantity has no reasonable, substan- tn hn sol of ae prohibited by law"
 We indulge In one furthe CT quota tion, from high authority, as succinctly stating the limitation upon the legis- lature in the exercise of the police power: It does not at all follow that every statue enacted ostensibly for tn @ promotion of these ends is to be &C., cepted as legitimate exercise of the police power of the state. There are of necessity, limits beyond which legis- lation cannot rightfully go. . If, therefore, statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health. the public morals or the public safety has no real or substantial re- lation to these objects, or in palpable invasion of rights secured by the fun damental law, 1t Is the duty of the courts so to adjudge, and thereby give effect to the constitution Mugler vs Gansas, 123 U. S.. 623.
 Such are the limitations upon the legislature in the exercise of the police power which must be observed in the consideration of this case There is no attack here upon any statutory enactment of the legisla ture. But the principle to be gathered from the cases considered applies with equal force, of course, to municipal ordinances, which must be enacted In pursuance of a delegated legislative authority.
 Municipal corporations in this state have power to adopt ordinances not in- consistent with the laws of the state, to provide for the safety, preserve the health promote the prosperity, improve the morals, order, comfort and convenience of the inhabitants of the municipality Code, section 1251. It 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, artfice, or subterfuge and ordinances making 1t an offense tc keep intoxicating liquors and beverages ir any place. public or private, with intent to sell or dispose of them in violation of law, all such being in consonance with the law and policy of the state, ant fairly implied in the broad grant of powers enumerated
 'The ordinance in question does no,