The Lee County journal. (Leesburg, Ga.) 1904-19??, 1909-05-07
HARLAN ONPROHIBITION
Supreme Court Justice Favors
Constitutional Amendment.
Law PROTECTS SHIPMENTS
AT Present Police Powers of States
Cannot Attach Liquor Shipment at
Any Point Of Its Journey.

Washington, D. C.-The only hope
of securing absolute prohibition IN
states which desire prohibition is for
congress- to pass constitutional
amendment making liquor a special
class in interstate commerce, accord
ing to Mr.. Justice Harlan OF the
supreme court of the United States.
In discussing the Wilson law and
its Interpretation by the supreme
court, he would not, of course, ex-
press an opinion on any pending mat
ter of legislation. Mr.. Justice Har-
Ian said that under this law man
is protected in his right to order
liquor for his own use from outside
of the state, to have it delivered to
his door, and to use it, so long as
does not interfere with the rights OF
others.
He was quite positive that the po-
lice powers of the state could not at
tach to the liquor shipment at any
point of the journey, either inside or
outside the borders of the state. The
states, he said, might under their po-
lice laws, forbid the importation OF
diseased food supplies, infected cattle
or any article that would endanger
the health and morals of the people.
But, he pointed out, liquors were still
considered, under the federal const1-
tuition, legitimate articles of COM
merce, and as long as they were so
considered they could not be made
contrabrand by the states.
This declaration of the venerable
iurist, who has sat on the supreme
court bench for thirty-tWo years, VIII
be a blow to those who believe that
congress can give to- the stateF power
conferred solely upon cons ress, under
the constitution; or, in other words,
can authorize a state, in the exercise
of it's police powers, to seize a snip
ment of liquor which citizen Is I'M
porting from another state for con
SUMPTION. storage and use.Y
Asked if the legislature OF state
could. in his opinion, pass law max,
ing it illegal for person to have. IN
his nossession. even for his own use,
. stated supply of liquors, Mr.. JUS.
tice Harlan was inclined to the bellef
that a state legislature could not limit
the amount of liquor a man might
have on hand.
The power to regulate interstate
commerce is lodged by the constitu
tion in congress. Liquors have al
along been, and are yet, regarded as
legitimate articles of commerce. Until
the protection granted liquors under
the interstate commerce clause OF the
constitution is specifically Withdrawn
no state has the right to seize and
condemn such shipments. This is the
reasoning of Mr.. Justice Harlan.
He said the Wilson law of 1890 die
not interfere with the right Of citi
zen in any state to have liquor snip
ned to him. Furthermore, the liquor
must be actually delivered. II
citizen of Georgia, for instance, cal
order LIQUOR from outside the stat
and receive it to his own use-an'
here comes the extreme point IN ~
argument-he declared it as his DC
lief that the officers of state coui
NOT afterwards step in and seize sue
sbipments, even under state law
For a state law to authorize such a.
interference, he thought would be III
constitutional
While a state may not at presen
interfere with citizens right 7
have liquor in his possession for hi
own use, it unquestionably has tn
right to prevent the sale, keeping
ones place of business for the pu
nose of sale or giving such liquc
away to induce trade.
AS to the question of G. o. D. shil
ments. or the introduction of liQuc
into dry state in original package
Mr. Justice Harlan said the interstat
commerce character of such shi
ments and the protection thereby el
loved, ceased the moment the liqut
was received and became mixed wit
fhe mass of goods, in the state. Whe
the original package was broken u
the liquor could not then be sol
without violating the law
knnh.n hnnnHaYTrm