Arizona republican., 1915-07-29
PERSONAL USE OF FIRE WATER
 IN THIS STATE
Legal Opinion Submitted to Mr. Bucknam, Holding That Amendment Does Not Prohibit Importation
 for Private Consumption

At the request of A. R. Buci<n2ni, in charge of prohibition organization and | one of the leaders. of the prohibition | enforcement work in this state and one of ke leaders of the prohibition | campaign last year, one of the leading attorneys of Arizona has submitted the | following opinion as to the right of cit | izens to import alcoholic beverages in- to the state for their pers6nal use i That right is upheld in the opinion, for l the prohibition amendment being de- i signed only to prevent the sale and dis | pensing of liquor and not the private use of it, it could not Lave been the 1 purpose to prevent that use by remov- 1 ing the means of procuring liquor, | The following is the opinion printed | by the Bisbee Review:
 1 The question you submitted to me l and 1t is the sole question | shall con slider is: Can one import intoxicating | liquors into the State of Arizona for l personal use without violating the Ar | izona Constitutional Amendment. Ar ticle XXIII? This amendment is | known as the Prohibition Amendment | and reads as follows:
 Ardent spirits. ale, beer. wine, or 1 intoxicating liquor or liquors of what ever kind shall not be manufactured 1 In or introduced into the State of Ar l izona under any pretense. Every per 1 son who sells, exchanges gives bar | ters, or disposes of any ardent spirits, ale beer. wine, or intoxicating liquor of any kind to any person in the State of Arizona, or who manufactures or in i troduces into. or attempts to introduce ] into the State Of Arizona any ardent ..: liquor Of any kind shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.'
 By a careful reading of the above mendment t will be found that it is not unlawfu for one to use intoxicat- ing liquors if he possess them. The punishment is directed towards those who may sell. exchange. give, barter or dispose If intoxicating liquors within the State of Arizona The phrase under any pretense" is necessarily limited to g violation of the amend ment and as it is not unlawful to use intoxicating liquors the inevitable con clusion is that it is not unlawful to ship into the State intoxicating liqaurs for ones personal use. The phrase "under any pretense" must mean that no person shall sell. exchange. give away. barter. or dispose of intoxicating liquors under any pretense,-as for ex- ample. grocery store could have large quantities of liquors on hand; could sell one dollars worth of coffee for two dollars. deliver one. dollars worth of coffee to the purchaser and one dollars worth of liquor Such a deal would be a pretense, and in vio- lation of the amendment But the a m CnnYnant Farhfde h.. int f14 .F intoxicating liquors into the State of Arizona and the words shall not be introduced into the State of Arizona'-' are incorporated in the amendment This means they shall not be introducoil
 into the state of Arizona for an un'aw- ful purpose and as one may use intox- icating liquors if he possess them then the 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
 icts with what is known as the Webb Kenon law.
 We may also here observe that the history of the Webb Kenyon law: the causes that led to it's enactment. and the evils it was intended to remedy. taken m connection with the carefully chosen words of the act, show that the object was to aid the states in sup pressing the illegal traffic in intoxi- eating 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 person ally use liquor or the right to have it in his possession for use.
 Adams ENp. Co. vS. Commonwealth
 Ky): 4S L. R. A. N. & 342.
 Could the common carrier be pun ished for shipping into the State of Arizona to one for his own personal use?" In answering this question I quote from the above authority, AS 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 to secure the punishment of the car rier. as it does not prohibit a common carrier from receiving, carrying. and delivering, as an interstate transaction. intoxicating liquor to the constance when it Is not intended bv any person interested therein to be received. nos sessed. sold, or in any manner used in Violation of the laws of this state. As to this character of tranasac ction the Kenyon law has no application and. having no application, the law. as 1t existed before the enactment of this legislation. the carrier can- not be punished for receiving, carving. and delivering. as an interstate tran saction, intoxicating liquor in local option territory to consignee who puchased it at a point in another state. when it is not intended bv any person interested there to be received, possessed, sold. or in any manner used Tn violation of the law of this state
 The South Carolina statute reading in part as follows, we think will give us information as to whether one may ship into Arizona, liquors for his per sonal use, to wit: "No person
 shall bring into this state
 any liquor or liquids containing alco- hol'