Evening journal., 1913-10-09
MAY TRY TO
UPSET HAZEL
LAW HIGHER
Continued from First Page.

Continued from First Page.
terstate shipments. even into territory
In which shipments were prohibited
by State statutes, the Adams Express
Company began to receive and deliver
shipments OF liquor from Pennsyl-
vania and Maryland into Kent and
Sussex counties. Up to that time the
express company had declined TO
handle or deliver such shipments. The
result was the arrest OF several agents
of the express company In the lower
counties on charge or receiving and
distributing liquor contrary to the
Hazel law.
Some OF the agents were indicted
this week by the Sussex grand jury
and others will be indicted soon IN
Kent county. After several arrests
had been made the Adams Express
Company discontinued its shipments.
Naturally the temperanoe forces
are happy over the outcome OF the
case affirming the constitu,ionality
OF the ant.-lquor shipment law.
Diners From Kentucky.
The opinion of the court was re-
garded by the many lawyers who
: heard u as one Of the ablest and
most exhaustive and carefully pre-
, pared ever handed down in Dcla-
ware. The opinion covered sixty
/ typewriter pages. The court says
that the Kentucky Court of Appeals,
/ IN lts recent Interpretation of the
Webh-kenyon law placed a construc-
ton thereon that twas TOO narrow
and hardly consistent with the clear
and admirable statement by the court
of the objects sought to be accom-
plished by the law"
The Kentucky Court Of Appeals
/ having ruled that said liquors we're
Intended by said coneignees. respec-
/ lively for their personal use, and
( were not so sold by them, causes the
/ Delaware Court TO say.
n will be noted that Congress
did not employ The word "con-
signee" or even "conslgnor and
I consigneer but very much broader
ones, "any pcrson Interested and
Il is dincult to conceive Of words
more comprehensive than those
or those other connecting words
received. possessed sold or In any
manner used.
We believe that construction
which narrows such language 20
consignees not only defeats the
plain object OF the. act. but ia un-
warranted In law under any rules
of statutory construction in our
opinion no violence is done TO the
language Of tho act when we hold
that such words are broad enough
TO embrace not only consienees,
but also consignors. common car
riers and any other transporta-
tion agencies.
COnstiiutionn1iiy Unheld.
Taking up the allegations OF un-
constitutonalitv OF the Hazel law.
the Court decided that the act Is not
unconstitutional because of It's tite, /
tho prohibition against common car |
riers and liquor dealers being "per- /
tinent and germanc 10 the general |
subject Of regulation"
A charge that an exemption allow
cd physicians and druggists hy per-
hitting them 20 receive Z. shipments |
up 20 five gallons Of liquor is class
legislation is answered thus;
1T may be stated as general /
proposition that the Legislature is the
best and only judge Of the policy Of
q proposed discrimination"
The Court says Il very much doubts
that It could absolutely prohibit the
sale OF liquor by physicians or drug
gists for medicinal purposes I'm view
Of the wording Of the Delaware Con-
stitution.
Regarding the allegation Of un-
constitutionality because the Hazel
law abridged the privileges Of citi-
zens guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment TO the Federal Constim-
ton" by restricting any individual
from bringing from any point with.
in the State into local option terril /
tory more than one gallon within
"a hours. the court says:
THE Legislature evidently believ-
ed that liquor was being brought
from other points in the State and
sold IN said counties CKent and Sus- i
sexl, and they also believed that II
the bringing into those counties Of /
more than the specified quantity IN /
the specified time could be prevent |
ed the unlawful selling would be |
stopped or materially reduced Who |
} can knowingly say the Legislature |
was not right IN its belief"