Bisbee daily review., 1915-07-27

lars worth of conee for two dollars deliver one dollars worth of coffee 10 the purchaser and one dollars worth of liquor Such a deal would be la pretense, and in violation of the Amendment. But the amendment for | bids the introduction of intoxicating ] liquors into the State of Arizona and the words 'shal not be introduced in- Ito the State of Arizona are in- ! |corporated in the amendment This |means shall not be introduced into the State of Arizona for an unlawful purpose and as one may use intoxicat- l ing liquors if he possess them then Jhe ] only rational conclusion is that any person may ship into the State of Arizona liquors for his personal use. - This construction in no wise con- dicts with what is known as the Webb | Kenyon law.
 "We may also here observe that the history of the Webb-Kenyon law the causes that led to its enacment. and the evils it was intended 10 remedy. taken in connection with the carefully chosen words of the act, show that the object was to aid the states in suppressing the illegal traffic in in. toNicating liquors and that it was not meant by this legislation to in any manner abridge the personal liberty of the citizens in the right to personally use liquor or the right tc have it in his possession for use." Adams EXp Co., ys. Commonwealth
 CEyJ; 4S l.. R. A. N. s. 34a.
 Could the common carrier be pun ished for shipping int othe State ol Arizona to one for his own personal use? In answering this question ! quote from the above authority. 4S l.. R. A. N S. page 34S. as follows.
 What the liquor involved in this transaction intended by any person in- terested therein to be received, pos sessed sold, or in any manner used in violation of any law of the State? This being true, the aid of the Webb-Kenyon law cannot be invoked Ito secure the punishment of the car rier, as it does not prohibit a common carrier from receiving, carrying. and delivering as an interstate transac- tion, intoxicating liquor to the con Isignee when 1t is not intended by any person interested therein to be reyeic- ed, possessed, sold, or in any manner used in violation of the laws of this state As 10 this character of transaction. the Webb-Kenyon law has mo application, and. having no appl- cation, the law, as it existed before ] the enactment of this legislation. the carrier cannot be punished i for receiving carrying and deliver | ling, as an interstate transaction. in- ] toNcatins liquor in a local option ter Iritory Co consignee who purchased Fit al a point in another state. when il l Is not intended by any person inter. ested there to be received, possessed. sold, or in any manner used in viola ton of the law of this state"
 'The South Carolina statute read \ ing in part as follows. We think will |, give us information as to whether one may ship into Arizona. liquors for his personal use, to witt No person
 shall bring into this state
 any liquor or liquids containing alec
 hop
 Tn construing the meaning of s C
 law, the Supreme Court of the State
 said. It follows that, under the Con
 stitution of the United States, every
 resident of South Carolina is free tC
 receive for his own use liquor iron
 other states, and that the innibitoin.
 of ihe state statute do not operate tC prevent liquors from other state.
 from being shipped into such stat,
 on the order of a resident for hul
 use The right of persons in on,
 state 10 ship liquor into another stat,
 10 a resident for his own use is de IrIyed from the Constitution of th
 United States. and does not rest ol
 the grant of the state law"
 4S l.. R. A. N. s. 352.
 am not inclined 10 press the rigb
 to ship into the State as strong as tn
 above opinion does but am incline Ilip heiiefe ihai he state may enac
 iaWs pfohibiiing mo use ol intoxica
 ing liquors, making it crime 10 us
 intoxicating liquors in any form.
 whether for personal use or otherwis,
 The Arizona Amendment has not mad
 lt crime to use intoxicating liquor
 and hence ] base my opinion uDon th
 grounds that inasmuch as 1t is n,