Evening capital news. (Boise, Idaho) 1901-1927, 1914-08-05
BY JUDGE
dunn CONFUSES
THE SITUATION
Holds It Is Not Unlawful
for Railroads to Accept
Liquor Shipments to New
Counties.

Has an opinion just handed down by
Judge Robert N Dunn of the district
court for Kootenai county added to the
confusion existing now with reference
to what is wet and dry territory and
the shipments into them of liquors?
Many here who have been notified of
his ruling believe that it has. Judge
Dunn held in brief that it is not UNI
lawful for a common carrier to trans
port and deliver intoxicating liquor in
Idaho when the shipment originates
without the state and is consigned to a
private individual in a prohibition dis
trict, provided the liquor is to be used
for no unlawful purpose. He rendered
this opinion in the case against G. B. |
Barrett, Occur d'Alene agent for the
Chicago, Milwaukee & st. Paul Rail
way company. arrested for violation of
the local option law in making the de-
livery of a case Of beer shipped from
Spokane to Occur d'Alene.
Railroads Confused.
The Oregon Short Line and other
common carriers in this state have
been somewhat confused about liquor
shipments owing to the conflicting rul-
ings on what are dry and what are wet
counties and the shipments of liquor
into dry territory. The railroad au-
thorities are said to have reached the
conclusion that in Idaho prohibition
may be brought about in three ways;
by local option by town or city ordi-
nances and by the refusal of the county
commissioners to grant liquor licenses.
In any of the three instances it is a
misdemeanor for any carrier to handle
either intrastate or interstate ship
ments of liquor into those territories
In his ruling Judge Dunn says in
part;
Undoubtedly the law of this state
permits an Individual in prohibition
district to receive and possess intoxi-
eating liquor for private use and un-
less there is some legislation Of con-
gress preventing such Interstate ship
ment or authorizing the state to inter
fere with such interstate shipment of
LIQUOR an Individual would have a
right to receive from a common car
rier, and such common carrier would
have a right to deliver to such indi-
vidual for private use, a shipment of
liquor originating in another state and
consigned to such individual in a pro-
AlblLlDl ulolIlCL III Llllb 6ldlb
THE receipt of the liquor in this
case being for private use and not for
sale or for any purpose contrary to the
law Of this state, the Webb Kenyon
law, in my opinion, has no bearing
upon the issue to be determined.
Defendant Is Discharged.
THE motion to discharge the defend
ant will be granted for the reason that
section IS Of the local option law does
not prevent the shipment Of liquors
from outside the state of Idaho to an
individual in a prohibition district
within this state when such liquor is
intended in good faith for private use
and not for sale or disposal in viola
tion of the law of this state"
States Precedent Analysed.
THE state relies on the case Of the
Crescent Brewing company versus Ore
gon Short Line Railroad company, de-
cided by the supreme court of this
state in May, 1913 That was an action
to compel the railroad company to re-
ceive 10 quarter barrels of beer at
Nampa, Idaho, for shipment to New
Meadows, Idaho, in a prohibition dis
trict. While the court held that that
was an interstate shipment for the rea-
son that it originated in Idaho, was to
pass into Oregon and finally reach. its
destination in Idaho, it seems to me
that there is a clear distinction to be
drawn between that case and this one
which deprives that case of all value
as a precedent here In that case the
court pointed out the fact that to grant
the writ of mandate would be for the
court to compel the commission of a
crime.
ITO my mind the case Of Louisville &
Nashville Railroad company against F
w Cook Brewing company, 223 U. S.
II, So Law Ed, 355. is decisive of this
case That was an action to compel
the railroad company to receive
shipment Of beer in Indiana to be de-
livered in a dry county in Kentucky in
violation of a statute of Kentucky
making it unlawful for any common
carrier to transport beer or any intoxi-
eating liquor to any consignee in any
locality within the state where the sale
of such liquors had been prohibited by
vote Of the people under the local OPP
ton law of the state.
U. S. Supreme Court Quoted.
"In holding that this law of Ken