Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1914-02-24


presented to the court as to whether
the defendant had the right to trans.
port and deliver Intoxicating liquors to
one not holding a permit. and while
the defendant pleaded the right to
transport and deliver for the personal
use of the consignee, Judge Hunter
did not pass upon that question, and
as the defendant did not appeal from
his failure to rule upon the point it
was not properly before the supreme
court on appeal. Plaintiff prayed for
an injunction against the defendant
restraining it from distributing or de-
livering, or aiding in the distribution
or delivery of Intoxicating liquors con-
trary to law. either in cars. wagons or
otherwise. in Wapello county or in this
judicial dist riot.
Transporter Must Know.
In dsposng OF the case, the sup.
rene court. speaking through Justice
Deemer. quotes extensively from the
case State VS.. Grier SO Att. 579, a Del
aware case which was decided last DC.
tober, wherein the validity of the
Webb-K enycn law was assailed on the
same grounds as in the present case,
and the constitutionality of the law
was sustained, even when applied to
shipment for the personal use Of the
cons gnee. While | of course do not
know how the supreme court of our
state would decide the question Of
shipments for personal use. if the ques-
ton were squarely presented, the de-
cision of this case with the settled
law of Iowa unquestionably holds that
%LD f,.oy NJ
what use is to be made Of the liquors
which are transported and delivered
by it. The Webb-Kenyon law prohib-
it's the tran sportation in interstate
commerce of any intoxicating liquor
when the same is intended by any per-
son interested therein, to sbe sreceived,
possessed, sold or in any manner used.
either in the original package or other
wise, in violation of any law OF such
state This being the law, it Is diff
cult to see how the boOtlegger is to
keep m his stock in trade, for it will
not do for the transportation company
to ship to consignee who receives the
liquor and then turns it over to the !
for the consignee would be
interested in the shipment and the
carrier would be liable for the ,
shipment | believe, this will be the !,
solution Of the liquor problem In dry !
and am assured by mem
s Of the Wapel.o county civic league 4!
vigorous measures will be taken
'nst the railroads and express COM ,
panies who violate the statutes against !
the Transportation and delivery of In
toXicating liquors in Ottumwa. @'H
No Right Anywhere.
TIE defendant challenged the val
dity of the act on the ground that it
gives privileges and immunities to citi
yens of one state, not possessed by
others under the same circumstances. J.
I'm disposipg of this contention. the
,ourt say: !
There is no absolute right to sell
liquors in any state. That is mattear
Of police regula ton and the act Of con-
gress neither gives nor protects that
right. In Crowley VS.. Christensen. 1877
U. S. Sc, the supreme court of the
United States said: !
1.-The statistics of every state show
a greater amount Of crime and misery |
to the use of ardent spirits ,
obtained at these retail liquor saloons
han to any other source. The sale of ::
such liquors has therefore BEEN at all
lines, by the courts of every state,
considered the proper subject Of legis-
alive regulation. -. The police
power of the state is fully competent
o regulate the business. to mitigate its
evils or to suppress it entirely. There
S no inherent right in citizen to thus
sell intoxicating liquors by retail. it
S not privilege Of a citizen of the :,
state or of a citizen of the United
States. AS it is business attended
With danger to the community it may.
IS already said. be entirely prohibited
,r be Permitted under such conditions
Is will limit to the utmost its evils !
The principal objection made by de-
endant to the act was that It was an i
Unlawful delegation of power to the I
tate.