Bisbee daily review., 1915-03-17
ARIZONA BARS ALL LIQUOR
 SHIPMENT
So Says Attorney Gene, al Jones Who Explains the Status of Webb-Kenyon Law and Re- cent Decisions.

Correcting the impression that the Webb-Kenyon law has been held un constitutional by the recent decision ! of the United States supreme court. ! and that intoxicating liquors may be imported into Arizona for personal use" the following letter has been re- ceivod from Attorney General Wiley F. Jones. relative to the scope of the decisions Odice of the Attorney General PHOENIX, March 13,1915 Numer ous inquiries have come to this office in reference to the decision of the United States supreme court on the lst instant, in the case of t1rmcyer ys State of Kansas mentioned in the | Associated Press dispatches of theI Bisbee Review. as well as the decis- | ion of the same high court in the case | of Vance vs Vanderhook with com-I ment thereon by a prominent attor' ney of Douglas
 | From the inquiries made Co me, l ascertain that there Is an impression i gaining ground that intoxicating li. luors can be imported or introduced | into the state of Arizona for person | al use.' under said decisions. regard | less of the new prohibition amend. neut to our state constitution, as well as regardless alike of the Webb ] Kenyon law og congress. which law
 is reported, is oyerruled as unCop stitutonal by the foregoing decisions l This impression is erroneous and write this for the purpose Of correct ing such impression
 The Vance vs. Nanderhook case above mentioned, appears in the 170th IU. s. supreme court report at page iA3S, and was decided May g. 1898, al- most seventeen years ago
 The case of Kimberly ys State of Kansas arose in the spring of 1912 and arose from the introduction of 1 liquors from Sullincz Missouri into ' Loavenwcrth. Kansas. about one and one-half miles distant, and a sale of the liquors in Kansas; the case was ] originally decided in the district court of Leayenworth county, Kansas. July | 20, 1912 On appeal to the supreme court Of Kansas judgement was rem : cred for the state, January n, 1913. ! (Seo 12s Pac Rep lllD almost seven weeks before The passage of the 1 Neit-Eeayou law by congress and which became a law March l. l9l3i thus it will be seen that both these cases arose long before the passage of the Webb-Kenyon act prohibiting the importation or introduction Of in.
 ovicating liquors into any state to be received into the state in violation
 q the laws of such state In fact congress passed the Webh-Eenyon act by a twothirds vote of both houses of congress. over the veto of Pres i- dent Taft, only three days before 1 President Wilson was inaugurated. 10 meet just such cases The Kirmeycl case, SO recently decided by the U, s supreme court. has been in the courts ever since the sale complained Of was made by Kirmcyer in the spring of 1912 nearly three years ago
 There are many worthy people who may have erroneous impressions on Ithis subject from a misappreheusion of tho facts and the dates involved | in the Webb-Kenyon law and the de cisions above referred to- and my pur- pose is to correct any such error
 The Webb-Kenyon law has not been oyCrruled but is a living, vital law of the United States, and in full force at the present time. Tho new iconetitutional amendment likewise is lin full force in Arizona, and l hopc the information herein contained may be appreciated by whomsoeyer may b be misled through a misunderstanc , ing of the actual facts, dates and cir cumstances touching the two doct ions above mentioned. and the We1b Kenyon law herein referred 10.
 WILEY E JONES
 Attorney General of Arizona