The weekly chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Craig County, Okla.) 1905-1913, 1911-12-29
STATUS OF LIQUOR LAWS
IN FORCE IN THIS STATE.

establish his night 70 The liquor. the
state would then Be able 20 dispose o.
is as the state law suthorizes
/ While al that has been said applies
10 state. yet the same regulation
would be applicable 10 a country. hay-
Iing local option. when the shipment,
Iof course. was an interstate one
Liquor in Indian Territory.
Other than announcement By rail
Iroad companies that they have uouaed
All agents 70 accept no liquor for car
rage or delivery into former Indian
TERRITORY or the Usage Nation Dosage
County,, based upon the recently de-
lcided Fort Smith case. nothing has
been done toward enforcing the de-
cree Of the court. The federal officers
are studying the new order with a
view Of determining where they stand.
and scope OF their authority. The car
riers win not take an appeal TO the SUI
lpreme court Of the United States, but
win leave that for the other side to do.
The general view in former Indian
Territory is given by the Muskogee
Times Democrat as follows:
The old Indian Territory liquor law
1.-THE one continued in force BY the re-
cent decisionJ made 1t crime for per-
sons to introduce liquor. and posses
sion was prima faeie evidence of intro
duction. The state law did not pro
hibit introducing. Thus. it seems, the
state and the federal laws now dove
tail nicely To the undoing Of the boot
logger. The state prohibition law,
which is declared by experts to be the
most iron clad ever adopted by COM
monwealth, is to be supplemented by
the most drastic prohibition law the
federal government has ever conceiv-
ed. II not only brings us back to the
days of Bud Ledbetter (once United
States marshal) and red ink, but goes
further still, and makes it felony for
any transportation company to intro
duce (ship) liquor into the prohibited
territory. Time was when half the
cases on the criminal dockets of In
dian Territory were docketed as I'm
PRODUCING II meant that some one
was accused Of bringing liquor into In
dian Territory. It might have been
half a pint or a car load The penalty
was the same But in those days, ex-
press 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
| 1t past the argus-eyed deputy United
States marshals, but it was then no
concern Of either the express com
panies or the railroads"
Gamut Of Three Trials.
Bootleggers of the future in Indian
Territory will have merry time, it is
predicted, of eyading convictions if
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 fed
eral government will be at libery to
convict for introducing or selling. After
that, the state will take a whack at the
violator with its law, which prohibits
Illegal possession under certain in
stances, and then If the violation hap
pens to be in a city which has an ord
nance against the proposition, the cul-
prit will receive his third soaking. The
fact that such may be done was held
in case brought before the criminal
court of appeals from Tulsa, oyerrul-
ing 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 admin
istration was counsel to the governor
in charge of suppression of the liquor
traffic The bill was appended to his
report 70 Governor Haskell just prior
to the administration change last Jan
uary.