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


IN which shipments we're 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 tho arrest Of several agents
OF the express company in the lower
counties on a charge or receiving and
distributing liquor contrary 10 the
Hazel law.
Some Of tho 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 It's shipments.
Naturally the tcmnernroo forces
arc happy over the outcome of the
case affirming the constltusionality
Of the ant'-liquor shipment law.
Diners From Kentucky.
The opinion OF the court was re-
garded by the many lawyers who
heard Il as one Of the ahlest and
most exhaustive and carefully pre-
pared ever handed down in Della
ware. Tho opinion covered sixty
typewritjon pages. The court saws
that the Kentucky Court Of Appeals.
IN It's recent Interpretation of the
Nehb-kenyon law placed construc-
tion thereon that was 100 narrow
and hardly consistent with the clear
and admirable statement by the court
Of the objects sought to be accom-
plished by the lawin
The Kentucky Court OF Appeals
having ruled that said liquors we're
intended by said consignees. respec-
lively. for their personal use. aud
we're not so sold by them,' causes the
Delaware Court 10 say.
II viii be noted that Congress
did not employ the word "con-
signec' or even "consignor and
consignee.' but very much broader
ones. ANY person interested and
it Is difficult 10 conceive OF words
more comprehensive than those.
or those other connecting worda.
roceived possessed, sold or IN any
manner used
We believe that construction
which narrows such language 20
consigneea not only defeats the
plain object Of the act. but Is un-
warranted IN law under any rules
Of statutory construction. In our I
opinion no violence is done to the
language Of The act when we hold
that such words are broad enough
to embrace not only consignees.
but also consignors common car
rieTs and any other transporta-
tion agencies.
Upheld.
Taking up the allegations Of un-
of the Hazel law,
the Court decided that the act Is not
because OF It's tit,e,
tho prohibition against common car
riers and liquor dealers being per
tlnent and Hcrmane 10 the general
subject OF regulation"
A charge that an exemption allow
cd physicians and druggists by per-
mitting them 10 receive b. shipments
up TO FIVE gallons OF liquor is class
legislation Is answered thus
IT may be stated as general
that the Legislature is the
best and only judge of the policy OF
4 proposed discrimination.
The Court says IL very much doubts
that II could absolutely prohibit the
sale Of liquor by physicians or drug
gists for medicinal purposes in view
of the wording of the Delaware Con-
ititution.
Regarding the allegation OF un-
because the Hazel |
aw abridged the privileges Of citi- /
tens guaranteed by the Fourteenth /
Amendment TO the Federal Constitu- |
ion by restricting any individual |
rom bringing from any point with
In the State into local option terri |
tory more than one gallon within |
"a hours. the court says:
THE Legislature evidently heliev- |
ed that liquor was being brought /
from other points in the state and |
sold In said counties tSent and Sus- 1
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"