The weekly chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Craig County, Okla.) 1905-1913, 1911-12-15
FEDERAL PROHIBITION FOR
FORMER INDIAN TERRITORY

A decision which, if given the inter
probation of which it is capable, will |
restore federal prohibition to all the
old Indian Territory part of the state,
approximately as prohibition existed
before statehood, recently has been
handed down at st. Louis by the United
States circuit court of appeal in the
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 to
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
Iappeal 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 a 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
selling 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
J that the liquors we're delivered to and
transported to the consignee residing
) in what was formerly the Indian Terri
tory.
at was alleged in this particular in
stahce that one Clifford, a resident o.
: Manford had ordered a shipment ol
| Intoxicating liquors by mail. That the
5 same was prepared by Friedman Co
4 and marked as required by the fedora
. statute and rendered to the United
2 States Express company for shipmen
!. land that the express company refused
} Ito. accept the same. The SPECIFIC
I grounds upon which writ of manda
/ mus was sought was that the Unite'
Q States Express company was com
g mon carrier: that it is prohibition b.
I the federal statute from discriminat
e ing against any particular commodity
t that the refusal of the express com
t pany to transport the intoxicating lie
{ uors constituted a discrimination, ant
7 that it was entitled to writ OF man
k damus to compel the company to ceas
}, such discrimination and accept intoxl
eating liquors for transportation t
:, consignees residing in what was fol
n merly the Indian Territory.
e The express company admitted tina
} it refused to accept the intoxicatin
l. liquors for transportation and insiste
i that it was not required to do so.
d "The state insisted that by the pre-
It vision of the enabling act, the act o
n January 30, 1897. prohibiting the intro
e duction of liquor into the Indian cour
L try upon Indian allotments, subject I
k restriction upon alienation, etc, wa
II continued in force as to that part 9
5 the state of Oklahoma formerly COZ
g lstituting the Indian Territory. Tha
+ such being true, that the transports
a ton of whiskey in what was formerl
8 the Indian Territory was a violation
r this statute and that whiskey as b'
tween the other states and that paI
It of the state of Oklahoma formerl
g known as he Indian Territory, was nc
r legitimate commerce and that the O.
D. press company was not bound, unde
<. the law to accept the same for trans
n portation.
t, Judge Rogers held against the cor
e. tentions of the express company an
s ordered it to accept the shipment ten'