St. Landry clarion. (Opelousas, La.) 1890-1921, 1909-08-14
GAN LIQUOR Be sold
IN WHOLESALE LOTS?
Ambiguous Decision Of supreme Court LeaEes
Natter IN Doubi..ls Being Done In Shreveport
ON III ADVICE OFATTORNEYS
The Question Hangs on Whether or Not Liquor
Gan be sold to Consumers. Prohibition.
lists are not Interfering.

Shreveport, Aug. 10.-Ihe Times
to-day prints The following story:
Though it may not be generally
known, liquor is being sold in ShreYe-
port ii what are termed wholesale
quantities. No special attempt is
being made to conceal the fact that
the traffic is being engaged il, and it
il not believed that the authorities
will take any action with reference
to the matter until the Supreme
Court hands down a decision in the
case Of ii. ]. SandoIoski. In this
case is involved the question Of
whether or not liquors can be sold in
wholesale lots in this parish.
It is rumored that beer is being
sold in wholesale or unbroken lots,
and, though it is not known If whisky
is being disposed Of in the same
quantities, it is stated that several
firms will establish stores here and
engage in the traffic.
The statement is made that in each
instance the persons engaged in the
sale Of liquors are acting on the ad-
vice of attorneys, who have construed
a decision Of the Supreme Court in
the Morris case to permit the sale Of
intoxieants in this parish in wholesale
quantities.
The decision of the high court in
the Morris case on this point is by
no means positive. At the time it
was rendered some attorneys re-
garded its terms as ambiguous, and
the attorney for Morris, though his
client won a victory, applied for a
new trial. A second decision was
given, and even this did not clear The
atmosphere.
THE CASE OF SANDAL0SKI.
Later the management Of the Phoe-
nix Hotel was found guilty Of yiolat.
ing the prohibition law, and in this
connection Sandaloski, the agent Of
the HoustonIc Ice and Brewing Company
was arrested. It was charged that
he had sold beer to the Pheoniz
people.
Sandoloski was called for trial anC
a bill Of particulars was asked ID hi;
case. The defendant wanted to know
il he was accused Of selling liquors il
unbroken packages or by wholesale
and the exact nature Of the charge
brought against him. District AT
torney Foster desired the question
finally disposed Of, and he said at tht
time that he would aid in having j
brought squarely to the attention 81
the Supreme Court. The interroga
tories in the bill of particulars, how
ever, were not answered to the salts
faction of the attorney for the de
PENDANT, and an appeal was takel
from the decision Of Judge Murf o
the District Court. The Supreme
Court is now IN adjournment and vii
not meet again until October.
The attorneys for those who arr
selling and others who intend to en-
gage in their sale are said to interpre
the decision of che Supreme Court il
the Morris case as meaning that LID
uors can be sold in this parish by th.
wholesale. However, it has not beef
stated that sales can be made to con
sumres for consumption in this par
ish. When this point has been de
eided there will be other develop
ments. IL it is against UholesalinI
to consumers the traffic here viii b
broken up or probably y~oluntaril
abandoned by those engaged in ii.