Weekly journal-miner., 1915-10-06
DECISION OPENS DOOR
 TO DRY TERRITORY
(From Saturdays Daily)

1 \A AOAAA AOo -AhSNASO llllNS VI
 Thursday, September 30, 1915)
 Following the exclusive publica ton in The Times yesterday of the fact that, while the traffic in liquor may be prohibited anywhere, there i: no such thing as dry territory mas much as shipments of liquor may be
 made to any destination for personal consumption, Los Angeles breweries and wholesale liquor dealers received a flood of orders from residents oi small cities in California where or. dmances have held that possession is sufficient to convict. Many orders came by telegraph from Arizona.
 Railroads and express companies which have been refusing shipments of liquor into supposedly dry terri tory yesterday passed word to the proper departments that all such shipments may hereafter be accepted.
 The belated discovery of the Stu preme court ruling, announced by Justice Day on June IA, and the ex- elusive announcement of that discov- cry in The Times yesterday, caused a hurried conference of railway freight officials and attorneys yesterday morning.
 Later, railroad officials called on Col. Henry Laub, head of the liquor interests in Southern California, and discussed the features of the case with him.
 The surprise occasioned by the an nouncement is that the railroads and express companies were unaware of the existence of the ruling. The Ken lucky case, upon which Justice Day wrote his opinion affecting the Webb Kenyon interstate liquor traffic law, was a prosecution of the Adams EX- press Company for taking liquor for personal use from Tennessee into Whitley county, Kentucky, dry terri tory.
 Justice Day, for the United States Supreme court, held it was bound to accept the desicion of the Kentucky Court of Appeals that the Webb-Ken- yon act was not applicable to cases where liquor was shipped interstate for personal consumption. The con viction of the express company in the lower court was therefore set aside.
 In consonance with the opinion of the highest court is the ruling of the Appellate court in a recent case. This provides that no city has tie right to pass ordinances providing that pos session of liquor is ground for legal prosecution of the owner or posses sor.
 While the construf ftion of the Webb Kenyon case restores certain liberty to the citizens of Arizona, sup poscdly a dry State, the Appellate court ruling makes invalid all ordi- nances on the subject enforced by incorporated cities.
 The far-reaching effect of both de- cisions not only stimulated the liquor traffic and opened up territory that was thought to be lost to them, but caused a sensation among the prohibi- tionists on the eve of the launching of their initiative petitions for the lo16 election.
 The decisions hold that prohibition does not prohibit In other words, that if California is voted dry next year, the purveyors of liquors within the State will be the only ones to sui fer, as the people will be allowed to receive liquors from eastern distil- lcries and from the breweries and wineries of other States.
 The prohibitionists will ask that tile traffic in liquor in California be abolished and will offer two amend ments to the constitution to bring about this end, but they regard the opinion of the United States Supreme court declaring that there is no such thing as dry territory to be nearly fatal iandicaD to their argument