Evening journal., 1913-07-09
HAZEL LAW
TEST RULING
IN OCTOBER
Continued Ffem TIfst Taee.

consigHee TO be used Tor ia"iel put-
pose.
If tae weba-Senyos Act was aB-
piisabis 70 the ease the e,ate eaa-
not succeed because the Aes Is uhc0h- /
etituiional,
NJ. Hsssiags end NJ. Wsgd aIgHed
that t6e title Of the Hazsi isw IS ~ reg
aiaie" the shipmeBf ef iiqaois. Whiie the
body oi ths bib setdsiit pfohl5its the
- shipment oi iiqseys. heilee the puf'
poses Of sAs isH IS aet set 5ofth ~ the
title as S required by the Constitution
Il was coatendeo.
-uas ceateatiss} ssid SjF, Hastings,
ris that this s. tiass legislation, dis,
eliminating againsi soms aHi iasenng
Others, which ot eepfss 81 prohibited, u
will be observed ihst iheFs aFe two
glasses Of pers9Hs excepted lfom ihe
provisions of the Aft o., pDyslcahs oi
druggists, Of spiptous, fin0us pf malt
liquors. and q churches, or the proper
officers thereof pf Wins for s4fi imentai
purposes u wili BIZ fHg.heF observed
that IN tils first class physicians ifne'
eists nothing Is provided 10 lbs lsa
pf such, sWrt0us. finoas 90 malt liquors,
while in the second fasp IS must De- gsed
fof sacramental purposes" MF. Hastings
sci forth eve pBncede That lhe classic
fcatioa msde with fesqrei 90 church, and
theif officers. pl wise fes sacsameniai
purposes is reasonable. We DO contend
however, thot The exception Of physicians
and druggists without say provision as
60 The uso 10 which sneh liquors may be
put is arbitrary aad unreasonable"
We do MOI dispute me iact that
the LEGISLATURE may impose such con-
dliions on the liquor dealers W. This
Nj Hastings II section IS confined
20 liquor dealers licensed under The
laws OF lhia statr. e may bc that &c
does moi abridee tne privilege OF d.
2cns but Is merely q further restric-
iion placed up ON iicen "a business.
In lhis case, however. ttc l.auor deal
er s nos Within the jurisdiction of che
Delaware Legislature and the Courts
can have no jurisdiction owes Hlm or
his agents until they como into the
State This defendant ccmca into the
State as agent OF sr-h iiuuor Gealer.
not FOR the purpose OF making q sale.
however but for the purpose OF m7k-
ins delivery OF property which the
purchaser had ri5ir go uro sfcn
received by him II section G
nhrldsea the fliyllesoa - citizens.
a. We believe IL oocr then 10 pun si
thl defendant urdel nc facts IN this
raee is an nbtidgmeDl also argued
Mr., Hastings. hccau5c. having 10 au-
thority over his neent who rs 1olng
roinng more than convey 'nr prom
eriy 10 lts owner under such circum
stances as the owi nd himself
have the right 20 convey g.
The defendant ia ,his ease received
liquor IN penns yl,nnin. sir Hastings ar
gucd and such receipt uf liquor by do.
PENDANT h not the receiving referred 10
IN the Act Of Congress nor docs that
statute Of this State undertake nor could
Il constitute punishment for the receipt
of liquor IN Pennsylvania 60 he trans
ported into Delaware The possession
which the defendant had was only fnr
The purpose of an intrrstnte transporth
tion The Mehh law 5 not mined at the
rerclpt cr possession of liquors by tht
p-it.m who IS 70 trausporf them lat
uidN by persons interested in liquor II
The tltle of the act Is q be- refcrrci 20,
the liquors we've divcstsl of fhcir inter
state commerce character mud ihe pom
hits ni the state law made applicable
on. Il the consignce iuicnded 20 sell Or
o'icrtiec illegally ise The liquor, no The
de- tnation aftc delivery 10 him. 40
the conclusion al the argument of Mr.
Hastings. luduc Boyce inquired of him
what therc was rciil, before the court,
inssmrch a. the package was lees than
gallon nd that Giier delivered IT, acting
as ConoNav's aeent. and since the sale
was ccnsummated ia Philadelphia.
tiicnry t;c-rial Wolcott WINS asked
whit zee had Go say relative % the argu-
nlcnt of Mr. Hastings and he expressed
thc lclicf that the sale was nude and
cnnsumuipted in Sussex county.
The Court stood divided as Go
whether or not TO proceed with the
argumcnt one being In favor 20
fuypcnd and two against Attorney
General Wolcoa then entered in this
argument which took most OF yester-
day afternoon. He took up Mr.. Hast
inrs' propositions one BY one and
analyzed them Tie claimed the title
oi tho bin was valid IN that "regul9-
ton covered all the provisions of The
Hazel law He also srgued that there
was no ahrideomcnt OF personal rights
Sor constitutional privileges In The
Hazel or Webb-Kenyon laws. HC
rucd. foo. that the sale Of liquor b,
kavscr 10 CONWAY was consummatcC
really in SUSSEX county when Griei
delivered It there. within tho mean
iua ri tho Hazel and Wobb-Kenyor
laws
Uphold Coustiiuiionality
As IN the general question OF con
stifutionality. Mr. Wolcoit said:
"pefore proceeding 20 discuss thes'
constitutional questions we respect
fully remind The Court Of the soil
citudo which Courts feel always &
presume in favor OF the constitution
ality Of an Act and. instead OF seelIini
for grounds to declare void an Act
rather zealously seek for grounds tina
will justify the sustaining of the Acl
The cases arc full of rulings b.
Courts throughout the whole country
which reveal a disposition on the par
of the judicial departments of th
State governments and of the Fedora
government to refuse TO encroac
upon the legislative department b.
declaring null the Acts of that depart
mfnt. unless a literal compulsion o
rfason impels the Court 10 set a mega
five upon the express legislative viii
four own Delaware Courts, 10 thei
4 great credit. have consistently am
vigorously repLdiated the idea tina
Courts should without most cogen
and compelling reasons lay a destroy
ing hand upon an act Of the Genera
Assembly and they have refused I
do so unless the act Of the Genera
Assembly is clearly and beyond dout
in violation OF the supreme will of IN
" r. as written in their COnstitt
Cos. his respect Delaware Court