Weekly journal-miner., 1915-09-01
August 23,' 1915.
Hon John F. Ross,
 County Attorney,

read the opinion of the Supreme
 court of the United States in the case
 of Adams Express Company vs. the
 Commonwealth of Kentucky, rem
 dered July IA last, wherein the Unit
 ed States Supreme court followed its
 rule of the past 50 years or more, by
 sustaining the decision of the Ken
 lucky Supreme court in a case where
 the State court construed its own
 statute. Have you read the decision
 in that case, of the Kentucky Stu
 preme court appealed from? If not,
 I would suggest that you read the
 case in AS L. R. A. (N. S.) 342; also
 tlAe case in said publication, i'm
 mediately following it-Atkinson vs
 Southern Express Company, reported at page 349. Kentucky, according to
 the decision in the Adams Express
 Company case, has no law prohibit ing interstate shipment of liquors into the State. As it is the largest manufacturer of distilled liquors of any State in the Union, of course it would be an absurdity, during the continuance of such condition, for it to have any law forbidding the i'm portation of liquors into the State.
 According to the decision of the Kentucky Supreme court, paragraph Z559 A, upon the subject of liquors, only applied to the shipment by car rier, of liquors intra-State, that is, to bring into transfer to other per. son or persons, corporations, carrier or agent, deliver or distribute, in any county, district, town, or city, where the sale of intoxicating liquors has been prohibited, etc" The Kentucky Supreme court simply held that that net applied to intra-State shipments, that is, to shipments within the State from county into a dry" county. That was the express holding of the Kentucky Supreme court. It also held hat it applied only to shipments from point to point within the State of Kentucky, and into dry county This State law of Kentucky was passed before the enactment by congress of he Webb-Kenyon law, and of course he Supreme court Of Kentucky very properly held that it did not apply |
 o interstate shipment from without
 nto the State. The defendant, hay ing transported the liquor from an outside point into the State of Ken lucky, the Kentucky Supreme court very properly stated:
 As to the character of the trans action, the Webb Kenyon law has no and having no applica- ton, the law, as it existed before the enactment of this legislation, is i'll force, and being in force, the carrier cannot be punished, etc."
 In the case of Atkinson vs. South ern Express Company, 4S L. R. A. (N. S.) 349; the South Carolina Stu premc court held, in line with the Kentucky case, that the passage of the Webb Kenyon act of congress lid not thereby enlarge the State statute of South Carolina, nor revive l statute that was unconstitutional by being in violation of the commerce clause of the United States constitu- ton, but the South Carolina court took the pains to state distinctly that after the passage of the Webb-Ken- yon act by congress "it is incumbent on the States to enact legislation of an active nature, if they are desirous of prohibiting the importation of li- quors for personal use or other pur- poses"
 The Kentucky court expressed the opinion in the Adams Express Com pany case that the legislature had no right to interfere with the citizen using liquor for his own comfort, pro vided that in so doing, he committed no offense against the public dccency by being intoxicated" holding that it was unconstitutional and forbidden by the bill of rights of the State of Kentucky.
 It will be readily seen that the Ken lucky case has no application to Ari- zona. Arizona is acting under no statute passed in violation of our State constitution. She is acting un der an amendment to the constitu- ton, which is now article XXIII of the Arizona State constitution, and adopted since the passage of the Webb Kenyon law, and drawn to meet the Webb-K Keuvon jaw at the