The weekly chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Craig County, Okla.) 1905-1913, 1911-12-29

Oklahoma City. Dec. z5.-Tne state
ment that the Oklahoma criminal court
Of appeals held. in constituting the
amended prohibition Iaw n the third
legislature that one could have -aI
the liquor ne wanted, and in any
amount. hardly states the situation
fairly It did hold that the legislature
had no authority 70 limit the amount
of intoxicants the citizen could pos
sesg, but with It went no edict that
the state could not inquire into the
good faith Of The citizens holding In
fart, the rule u reason. 50 10 speak.
remains IN force
To illustrate. The interstate com
nerce Law recognizes liquor as a Iegi-
innate item of commerce between the
states. therefore a citizen may pro-
cure It for his personal use. over
which there would be no qDsssi0a. yet
If he purchased a car load, the Law as
gumes that to be too much for per-
sonal and convenient consumption.
therefore the amount continues TO be
an element Of good or bad faith
The legislature in proposing to limit
the citizen 10 one quart Of whisky, etc.
vent beyond It's legal right Had it
been specified that the possession Of
more than one quart was prima facie
evidence Of an intent 20 violate the
Law. then the burden Of proof would
have been shifted to the possessor. and
il would have been up 70 him to show
that none Of the goods was intended
for Illegal purposes. with such or
similar yerbage the law would have
stood up" in that respect
New Congressional Act.
One Of the greatest embargoes pro-
hibitionists have had to encounter is
that holding Of the courts declaring in
terstate shipments OF intoxicating liq-
uors continued to be interstate" in
character until they reach the hands
of the eonsignee. This has not been
the results Of phrase-twisting or bench
acrobatics, but those decisions sustain
ing the rule declare 1t Is based upon
clear conception OF what interstate
commerce says and actually intends.
Following this position they reason
that if the interstate commerce law
permits the citizen to receive a ship
ment and protects 1t while IN transit.
then the citizen Is entitled to secure
actual possession of the goods. wheth-
ed 1t be at the railroad station. or his
place Of business. or home Some
courts have held the citIzen5s right to
himself carry the liquor from the depot
to his residence, upon the theory the
residence was where 1t was intended
To go. and 1t made no difference what
the agency of actual delivery was.
Once the iiquor reached the place of
ultimate consignment, then the state
law would attach.
Five years ago the prohibition advo.
Gates came TO the realization that state
laws by themselves would not bring
about desired condition. 1t was plain
that substantial aid would have to
come through congressional enact
ment, and they foresaw the possibility
Of sharp conflict between the state
and federal rules respecting interstate
commerce. For several years there
has been gradual tightening of the
ropes, in which the interstate com
merce law has lost none Of It's potency
but the line OF demarkatlon Of the two
rules appears more definitely drawn
and in more certain language The |
last step was in the federal Law re-
quiring the labelling of intoxicants. so
that would be notice to all concerned |
Of what the shipment contained. and |
because an aid to the state regulation,
in that every question of contents was
predetermined. The fact there Is such
a law extant makes it more certain
that former Indian Territory will re.
main dry, IN view Of the civil court
OF appeals decision in the Fort Smith
case
Like Food and Drug.
There is TO be or has been a bill Of
fered. in the United States senate,
which, It is believed. draws the afore.
said line Of demarkation ABOUT as tight
as 1t possibly could be without sever
ing The legal strands. Realizing the
impossibllity of declaring that intox-
icatlng liquors shall become subject
TO police regulations of state as soon
as they cross the state line in inter
state commerce, the new idea follows z
the rule laid down In the food and drug
act and allows the state a procedure
by which the legal status OF the liquor