The Vinita daily chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1902-1913, 1911-12-14
FEDERAL PROHIBITION FOR
FORMER INDIAN TERRITORY

" OLD lndlan Territory part or the state
approximately as prohibition existei
before statehood, recently has beel
handed down at st. Louis by the Unite,
States circuit court of appeal in tn,
case of the United States Express com
pany plaintiff in error, against Lewis
Friedman ct al, defendants in error
The cause was appealed from the Unit
ed States district court for the western
district of Arkansas.
Briefly, the court held that the ex
press company could not be forced tc
carry intoxicating liquors into the In
dian Territory part of the state, cinse
to do so would be in violation of the
enabling act which was continued in
force in the state constitution.
The original action which led up to
the suit is extremely interesting. Con
cerning the case, S. T. Bledsoe, of Cot,
tingham & Bledsoe, attorneys for the
United States Express company, said
"wednesday:
The decision Of the circuit court Of
lappeal in the case of the United States
Express company, plaintiff in error. VS..
Lewis Friedman ct AL defendants in
error, involved the right of Friedman
& Co., to compel the United States Ex-
lpress company to receive at Fort Smith
Ark, for transportation to Manford,
Okla, a shipment of intoxicating liq-
uors.
"Manford, Okla, is small village
located in the Creek Nation near the
western boundary line. Friedman &
Co. were wholesale liquor dealers do
ling business at Fort Smith, Ark, and
lselling quantities of liquors to resi-
dents of what was formerly the Indian
TERRITORY. They contended that the
sale was made at Fort Smith, Ark, and
that the liquors were delivered to and
transported to the consignee residing
| in what was formerly the Indian Terri
tory.
1T was alleged i'll this particular in
Stance that one Clifford, a resident of
IManford, had ordered shipment of
Intoxicating liquors by mail. That the
same was prepared by Friedman & Co.
and marked as required by the federal
statute and rendered to the United
States Express company for shipment
and that the express company refused
| to accept the same. The specific
grounds upon which writ of manda-
mus was sought was that the United
States Express company was COM
mon carrier; that it is prohibition by
1.-The federal statute from discriminate
ling against any particular commodity;
| that the refusal of the express COM
Ipany to transport the intoxicating liz
Iuors constituted discrimination, and
that it was entitled to writ of man.
|damus to compel the company to cease
such discrimination and accept intoxi-
eating liquors for transportation to
consignees residing in what was for
|merly the Indian Territory.
"The express company admitted that
it refused to accept the Intoxicating
liquors for transportation and insisted
that 1t was not required to do SO.
"The state insisted that by the pro-
vision of the enabling act, the act of
January 30, 1897, prohibiting the intro |
duction of liquor into the Indian coun-
try upon Indian aflotments. subject to |
restriction upon alienation, etc, was
continued in force as to that part of |
the state of Oklahoma formerly con-
stituting the Indian Territory That |
such being, true, that the transporta-
tion of whiskey in what was formerly |
the Indian Territory was violation of
this statute and that whiskey, as be-
tween the other states and that part
of the state of Oklahoma formerly I
known as he Indian Territory, was not
legitimate commerce and that the ex-
press company was not bound, under
the law to accept the same for trans
portation.
Judge Rogers held against the con-
tentions of the express company and i
ordered it to accept the shipment tend
cred it by Friedman & Co. From this ,
judgment the company appealed to the
circuit court of appeals for the Eighth
circuit, and the court of appeals now
has reversed the decision of Judge
Rogers and directed the lower court |
to dismiss the suit. In this opinion 1t
is held that the act of January 30, 1897 |
ca Stat. 5O6-O7), is still in force as to
what was formerly the Indian Terri
tory and applies to and prohibits inter-
state shipments of intoxicating liquors
to consignees residing therein.
'aThe opinion is not entirely clear
as to whether it applies to the entire