Carolina watchman. [volume] (Salisbury, N.C.) 1871-1937, 1913-02-26
WHAT the WEBB BILL MEANS.
Senator Thornton. an Opponent Of ProhIhi.
tlon, Believes the States Should Control.

When the bill to regulate th
inter- State shipments of liquo
was under consideration in tn
United States Senate on the 10th
Senator Thornton of Louieianl
spoke in favor of the measure
His remarks will be of interes
to those on both sides of th'
question in North Carolina. H,
said:
"Mr. President, I presume
that other Senators have had 9
common experience with myself
in the matter OF receiving req uestl
to vote against the pending bill,
generally known as the Kenyon.
Sheppard bill and generally under
stood to have for its object the
prohibition of the shipment of
liquor from q State in which it
il lawful to sell it, TO State in
which Its sale 10 not legalized; an
understanding based on q populsr
error, fer the bill does not prohibit
such shipment, but does subject
it to the authority of the police
power of the other State when it
enters its jurisdiction and before
it reaches the consignee, provided
it had been purchased for the pur.
pose of violating the laws of the
State.
powerful political influences
from my own State, which is not
. prohibition State except it
spots, have besn brought to bear
on me by those who have besn
my personal as we'll as political
friends, in thereffort to have me
vote against the passage of the
bill, the parties generally basing
their opposition on the twofold
ground thstit was unconstitution.
sl and a violation of the right of
personal liberty. To all I have
answered that I could not do so
oonsistent'y with my views of the
rights of the respective States of
the Union.
''If either of these objections
appeared to me we'll founded, l
would vote against the bill, for I
have taken an oath to obey the
constitution of the United States
and I am now, % I have ever bean,
. strong believer in the right of
the personal liberty of the indi-
vidusl citizen.
"But while there may be q
doubt in my mind as to the con-
stitutionality of the bill, that
boubt 10 not sufficiently strong to
make me vote against its passage,
for I cannot justify myself in
taking the position that unless .
legislator was absolately sure of
the oonstitutionslisy of On act
submitted to him it IL his duty to
vote against it, even though he
thought the motive for ito incep.
tion was proper and the result of
its passage would be beneficial.
II hold, rather that l have no
right in such q case to attempt
to block what I considered proper
legislation, but that it would be
my duty to assist i'll its passage
and let the courts pass on the
mooted question. And so in this
storm the safe harbor of uncon-
stltutionality is not open to me
for entrance. So much for that
part Of the question.
Gas for the second part of the
proposition, it will not be disput-
cd that the right of the personal
liberty of the individual citizen
Is subordlnated to the greater right
of the State to control that liberty
within such bounds as are con.
sidered proper with reference to
the we'll being Of the community
at large. The right of a State in
the exercise of its police powers
to regulate the liquor traffic with.
in boundaries or - suppress such
traffic entirely will not le denied.
"This bill permits the States to
exercise the same police power
over liquor shipped into its terri
tory from another State that it
could exercise ever it if the ship.
ment originated within it, terri.
tory. a power that cannot be ex-
eroissd except for the purpose :of
preventing the violation of its
own laws.
"fhe effect of it's passage will
be to prevent the general goysrn-