The Birmingham age-herald., 1909-07-13

of the manufacture and sale of intoxicat- ing liquors and beverages within its ter ritory Is constitutional exercise of police power.
 "2. That as a general proposition, the state prohibition law does not put liquors outside the pale of the law, and the law fitness of keeping intoxicating liquors and beverages is recognized by the provision that the act shall not prohibit the serving of the liquors and beverages mentioned in the act in private residences In ordinary social intercourse.
 ''3. That spirits and distilled liquors are subjects of ownership and property.
 "We do not doubt that intoxicating beverages are property in the state of Alabama, but 1t does not follow from this admission that no restriction may be placed upon the use of such property, or upon the keeping or storing thereof by the law-making power. On the contrary, we contend that while a right of property exists in intoxicating liquors, yet such liquors constitute property of peculiar kind and class, the use thereof being of dangerous tendency and that intoxicating beverages constitute kind of property which may not be ligitimately sold or dis- pensed to other people. The inhibition it. self Is serious restriction upon the right of property in such liquors, and yet 1t Is a restriction whose validity is universally recognzed. It must be noted that the in hibition Of the ordinances Is directed only against the storage or keeping of intoN- eating liquors in places where the bever age business is conducted it being obvious that a beverage business is one that af- lords peculiar facility for evading tho prohibition law by selling the prohibited beverages under cover of the business. A man might keep intoxicating beverages at his residence, or in his law office, or in his dry goods store without much danger of being able to carry on sale of intoxicating liquors without being detect ed, but the difficulty of detection is ob- viousy much greater, if indeed, detec- tion is not well-nigh impossible, when the storage occurs in beverage establish- ments or soft drink stands"
 Menace to Prohibition Law.
 It is set forth in the petition that for some time the soft drink stands have been a constant menace to the enforcement of the prohibition law. It goes further to state that the ruling of the court in favor of the soft drink places is considered practically a severe blow to prohibition as exemplified by the rejoicing on the part Of the brewing and distilling inter ests and -prohibitionists.
 Dwelling on the point of the difficulty of proof of intent the petition says
 ''lt is said in the opinion that it would be competent to enact an ordinance against the storage of liquors with in- tent to sell the same, but just at this point les the difficulty of proof of intent. If tEe dealers pursued the practices which they pursued in the past, and kept a small amount of liquor on their premises in g cup or vessel of some other kind, it would be very easy for them to say that tho liquors were kept for their private use and it would then be diff ficult to secure a conviction of the vio- lation of such storage ordinance unless proof were made of an actual sale; and if proof could be made of an actual sale, then there would be no need to fall back on the storage ordinance, because a sale would be a violation of The state law Hence in practical operation, officials dealing with the difficult problem of pre- venting evasion of prohibition laws and of securing their enforcement, have found that 1t is necessary as a means of ac- complaining the purposes of the law, to prohibit the having or storing of liquor in beverages establishments, and they have found that unless such storage can be prohibited, they will be greatly ham, pered in their effort to enforce the law, and to detect violations as they occur. It must be remembered that these sales are made to men who are in sympathy with the dealers, and who in many cases esteem it roint of honor not to report illegal transactions"
 Is Non Sequitur.
 In another place the petition reads:
 ''The real point of the decision is found in the last two paragraphs because all what precedcs those relates to general matters hot directly involving the actual point under consideration The statement of the learned judge that if the mere keeping of beverages at soft drink stands may be prohibited there might as wei! jc prohibited the keeping of such iiquors at any place where men are, many or few, is, it seems to us. a manifest TOT. sequitur. There may be many places where men resort which do net lend themselves to this evasion; since 9 soft drink stand for the reason stated above is one or a peculiar nature and one which affords peculiar opportunity for evading the law. It Is not necessary to support this ordinance, that the court must lay down the generalization that 1t is competent to prevent the storage of liquors where many or few people resort. The question only is whether 1t is compe- tent to prohibit the storing of such liquors al places where men may resort to drink. We do not understand the reasoning by which it is asserted that if one cannot prevent the storage of liquors in soSe places, one cannot prevent it in others.''
 Speaking finally on property rights the petition reads:
 Property rights have not interfered with the closing of breweries and distil-