The Vinita daily chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1902-1913, 1911-12-23

0RHN0Ao hSANS Al ROnrli AliC
amended prohibition law of the third
Legislature, that one could have "all
the liquor ne wanted, and in any
amount" hardly states the situation
fairly. 1t did hold that the legislature
had no authority to limit the amount
of intoXicants the citizen could pos
sess, but with it went no edict that
the state could not inquire into the
good faith of the citizens holding. In
fact, the rule of reason, so to speak,
remains in force.
To illustrate: The interstate com
merce law recognizes liquor as legi-
innate item of commerce between the
states. therefore a citizen may pro-
cure it for his personal use, over
which there would be no quetsion, yet
if he purchased a car load, the law as
sumes 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 to one quart of whisky, etc.,
went beyond its legal right Had it
been specified that the possession of
more than one quart was prima facie
evidence of an intent to violate the
law, then the burden of proof would
lhave been shifted to the possessor. and
it would have been up to him to show
that none of the goods was intended
for Illegal purposes. With such or
similar verbage 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
lterstate shipments of intoxicating liq-
Iuors continued to be interstate" in
character until they reach the hands
lof the consignee This has not been
the results of phrase-twisting or bench
lacrobatics, but those decisions sustain
ling the rule declare it is based upon
a 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 ship
lment, and protects it while in transit,
Ithen the citizen is entitled to secure
lactual possession of the goods, wheth-
ed it be at the railroad station, or his
lplace' 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 it was intended
to go, and it made no difference what
1.-THE agency of actual delivery was
lOnce the liquor reached the place oi
ultimate consignment. then the state
law would attach
Five years ago the prohibition advo
Icates came to the realization that state
laws by themselves would not bring
labout desired condition. It was plaiI
that substantial aid would have tC
come through congressional enact
ment, and they foresaw the possibility
of a sharp conflict between the state
and federal rules respecting interstate
commerce. For several years therf
has been a gradual Tightening of tht
Iropes, in which the interstate com
Imerce law has lost none of its potency
but the line of demarkation of the twt
rules appears more definitely draw
. and in more certain language. Th'
Hast step was in the federal law re
quiring the labelling of intoxieants, 81
that would be notice to all concerned
of what the shipment contained. ant
because an aid to the state regulation
in that every question of contents wa
predetermined The fact there is sucl
law extant makes it more certain
that former Indian Territory will re
main dry, in view of the civil cour
of appeals decision in the Fort Smitl
case.
Like Food and Drug.
There is to be or has been bill oi
Ifered in the United States senate
(which, it is believed, draws the afore
said line of demarkation about as tigh
as it possibly could be without sever
ling the legal strands. Realizing th