The Birmingham age-herald., 1915-03-06
No Statute Now in Force in Alabama Prohibiting Such Circulation, He Holds
 in Test Case
DOES NOT RULE UPON QUESTION INVOLVED
 AFTER FIRST OF JULY
Matter Brought Up in Proceedings Brought by Faulkner Against De- laye-Black Differs With Judge and Will Continue to Cause
 Arrests for Violation

Judge John H. Miller of the city court of Jefferson county yesterday afternoon ruled that no statute now in force in Alabama prohibits the circulation of liquor advertisements.
 The court did not rule upon the broad question involved when the state wide prohibition statutes go into cf- feet July 1. but confined itself to prcs- cnt conditions.
 The question was brought up in the case Of the state of Alabama on the rela- ton of W. H. Faulkner, a news agent against Il. R. Delaye of the Delaye News Agency, in which an injunction was sought to prevent Deaye from selling newspapers and periodicals containing liquor adyer- tisements.
 Position of Court
 The court held that the recently enacted ant-liquor advertising law is directed against the advertising of liquors, 'the manufacture and sale of which is prohib- ited in Alabama" and that the manufac- ture and sale of liquors is not now pro- hibited in Alabama. Consequently decision on the broad question involved goes over until such time as the point may be raised after the date when the legalized manu- facture and sale of liquor in Alabama is no longer tolerated.
 Delaye was represented by Banks, Decd meyer & Birch and B. s. Gross, and Faulkner was Represented by W. A. Jacobs
 Judge J. J. Banks for Delaye urged that the general question of the right of the papers containing liquor advertisements was properly involved in the pending controversy, but the court confined itself to the pending status.
 General Argument by Banks
 Judge Banks submitted a general ar gument on the question, taking 2p first the ground to which the court confined itself-namely the feature of the statute which provides against advertising liquors prohibited to be manufactured and sold in the state.''
 Taking up the interstate feature he cited the case Of Barbour vs. Minnesota. The supreme court of the United States in this case declared void a statute prohib- iting the sale In Minnesota of meat which had not been inspected on the hoof by Minnesota's state board of inspection. Barbour, a butcher, got dressed meat from Chicago and sold it in Minnesota, which had not been inspected by the state board. The supreme court held that Congress only had Jurisdiction over interstate com merco, and that the state of Minnesota by preventing the sale within the state of an interstate product could not do by indirection what the constitution of the United States would not permit di- rectly-namely, the importation into the state of an article permitted in interstate commerce.
 Similarly a New York statute pro- hibited the sale within the state of any convict manufactured article not so branded. In state of New York vs. Hawkins, Hawkins imported scrub brushes from the Ohio penitentiary and sold them in New York without their being branded ''convict made" The su- preme court held the statute exceeded the states authority as an improper interference with interstate commerce and seeking to do indirectly what could not be done directly.
 After July
 Judge Banks also took up the point that even under the Alabama statute becoming effective July 1 the posses sion and consumption of liquor are not made illegal for it is permitted to be brought in in certain quantities. con quently the anti-liquor advertising law is void because it provides only against advertising liquors, the sale of which within in the state is prohibited. He declared that the sale through an ad- vertisement might be made in New York Cincinnati or London or any where outside the state of Alabama and be in conformity with the laws against the sale of such liquors within the state He claimed the advertising of a legalized article could not be inhib- lted and that even after July 1 the pur- chase, possession and consumption of liquors are legalized in Alabama under certain restrictions.
 Statement From Black
 Solicitor Hugo l.. Black differed in his opinion of the law in the case from Judge Miller. He states that the ad- vertising of liquors is matter of reg ulation in that while the statutes of the state authorize the sale of liquor until the first of July, 1915, yet the sale is subject to regulation just as the law now in force provides against certain kinds of intoxicating liquors and the territory in which they may be sold He further states he will endeavor to enforce the law to the letter. He