The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1911-12-22
STATUS Of STATE LIQUOR LAW
FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTES

I upon the consignee to show that the
converse is true, and until this is
done the court is custodian of the
goods. If the consignee can not es-
tablish his right to the liquor, the
state would then be able to dispose
of it as the state law auhorizes.
While all that has been said applies
to a state, yet the same regulation
would be applicable to a county, having
local oItion, when the shipment, OF
course, was an interstate one.
Liquor in Indian Territory.
Other than announcement by rail
road companies that they have noti-
fled all agents to accept no liquor for
carriage or delivery into former In
dian Territory or the Usage nation
| Dosage County,, based upon the re-
Gently decided Fort Smith case, moth
ing has been done toward enforcing
the decree of the court. The federal
| Officers are SluuH ms tHc hcN oiuSi
with a view OF determining where
they stand, and scope of their author
! ity. The carriers will not take an
| appeal to the supreme court of the
| United States, but will leave that for
the other side to do. The general
view in former Indian Territory is
given by the Muskogee Times-Demo-
crat as follows:
The old Indian Territory liquor
law (the one continued in force by
the recent decision) made it crime
for persons to introduce liquor, and
possession was prima facie evidence
of introduction. The state law did
not prohibit introducing. Thus, 1t
seems. the state and the federal laws
now dovetail nicely to the undoing OF
the bootlegger. The state prohibition
law. which is declared by experts to
be the most iron clad ever adopt'i
by commonw ealth, is to be sup
Dlemented by the most drastic proa-
I bition the federal government has
ever conceived. 1t not only brings us
back to the days of Bud Ledbetter
! (once United States marshaD and red
/ ink, but goes further still, and makes
/ il a felony for any transportation
/ company to introduce (ship) liquor
| into the prohibited territory. Time
was when half the cases on the Grim
/ inal dockets of Indian Territory were
docketed as Introducing 1t meant
! that some one was accused of bring
ing liduor into Indian Territory. 1t
! might have been a half a point or
] car load. The penalty was the same.
| But in those days, express companies
and railroads were not restrained
from shipping liquor the man Who
/ sold it and the man who bought 1t
took chances on ever getting it pas'
the argus-eyed deputy United States
marshals, but it was then no concerA
of either the express companies or
/ the railroads.
Gamut Of Three Trials.
/ Rootleggers of the future In indian
! Territory will have merry time, it IS
predicted, of eva ling convictions il
once apprehended in selling the goods.
The criminal court of appeals of the
state has held that one act may con-
stitute several offenses. First, the
federal government will be at liberty
to convict for introducing or selling.
After that, the state will take
whack at the violator with its law,
which prohibits illegal possession un-
der certain instances, and then If the
violation happens to be in city
which has an ordinance against the
proposition, the culprit Will receive
his third soaking The fact that such
NAV be done was held in case
brought before the criminal court OF
appeals from Tulsa, overruling the
contention of two jeopardies for one
offense.
The proposed new law recently de-
cided upon at the conference in Wash
ington, and above referred to, was
drafted by Fred S Caldwell of Okla
homa City, who during the first ad-
ministration was counsel to the go'-
ernor in charge of suppression of the
liquor traffic. The bill was appended
to his report to Gov Haskell Just
prior to the administration change
last January.
Jackson Day Banquet