The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-01-14
United States Circuit Court of
Appeals lntcrprets West Vir-
ginia Law in Conjunction
With Federal Laws
Both Contentious
of State Upheld
Use Of Mails Constitutes Solici-
tation and Place of Delivery
of Liquor Is Its Place of Sale
Declares Court III Reversing
Lower Courts Decision

The United States Circuit Court
of Appeals. Circuit Judge Knapp
and District Judge Waddin sitting
IN Richmond. yesterday handed
down n far reaching decision In
the case OF the State Of West Vir-
GINA versus the Adams Express
company. The decision Involves
the Interpretation Of the scope of
Went tfrEinia's prohibition laws.
considered I'm conjunction with
The FEDERAL provisions OF the
Nebb-kenyon liquor law.
The case in point arose soon after
the West Virginia statute went into
effect. one provision of that statute
ts that orders for liquor shall not be
solicited In the state, and another
provision nah es the place Of delivery
Of liquor the Place or sale. The state
Il West Virginia, through Commits
sioner of Prohibition Fred O. Blue,
brought an injunction proceeding
against the Adams Express COMPANY
restraining til, company from denver
las iiauon to party who had order
I'd the liquor sent IN from Cincinnati.
~ was admitted that the order for
he liquor Was sent ia response 10 a
circular sent out BY the Cincinnati
liquor honse. and then shipped con-
srafs TO the West Virginia law. The
State autho titles held that this sale
wrss contrary 70 the Ian as the act Of
sending in literature 10 which re-
rponse was made In the shape of
orders for liquor constituted solicit
tation Of orders, The company claim
ed that only personal solicitation was
embraced uruer the terms of the law
and therefore. use of the mails could
not be termed solicitation. The State
further contend~d its right 10 en- join
delivery heca' Sc the liquor was actu-
ally sold in West Virginia under the
statute making the place of delivery
the place os sale.
The case came before the United
States Circuit Court on appeal from
she lower court. The decision Of the
sadgcs-Wpocs. Knapp and Waddill-
constitutes q sweeping victory for the
State laws. unfolding both the con-
tention that the use of the mails con-
s,itutes solicitation and that the place
Of delivery is the place of sale. The
decision also holds that the Webb
Kenyon law confers on the States am
pie powers u control over the traffic
in Intoxicating liquors from outside
sources.
History of Case.
The case was argued December 2,
1914, before Circuit Judges Knapp
and Woods and District Judge Wad-
dIli ty Fred Q. Blue and Wayne r.
w HtSfSI iVt tBiF Va eENl v "a
ginia, and Ivy George T. Price and
Joseph s. Graydon. and by Lawrence
MAXWELL on brief for the Adams EN-
press Company.
The opinion was written by Judge
Woods and covers fourteen typewrit-
ten pages, the reyieH covering every
phase OF the case. Reviewing the
state of West Virginia brought suit in
the Circuit Court OF Kanawha County
against the Adams Express Company.
n. III. Clendenin and Edward Iseigef,
alleging that Beigtl, OF Cincinnati.
sent through the mails to persons In
West Virginia circular letters solicit
Ing the purchase of intoxicating
state, that Ciendenin. induced by the
solicitation ordered from Beigel one
fourth OF barrel of beer, which was
carried by the Adams Express Com
pany from Cincinnati to Charleston,
w. Va. ana held there by carrier
ready for delivery when the bill was
He'd. The State alleged the express
company failed to use due diligence to
ascertain. before carrying the beer,
whether the contract for its sale was
made through an Illegal scheme of
solicitation. and that by delivering the
beer 1t would aid Beigel in his uniaw-
fui attempt to make sales In West
Virginia.
Eject OF Webb Kenyon Law.
The prayer of the State In its bill
for injunction isegiven After the in
junction was issued the cause was re-
moved TO the District Court, where on
motion of the express company the
injunction was dissolved. II Is shown.
Continuing the opinion says:
The appeal requires considera-
ton OF the scope and effect of the
West Virginia constitutional ana
the act of Congress of list of March, |
'Tn trying to comprehend the legis-
Ii is important to remember that the |
ultimate end sought in prohibition
legislation Is not the prevention or
restriction Of the mere sale Of intoxi- |
Giants. but the prevention OF their |
consumption as beverage -
I'VE are not concerned In this case I
with the question whether the State I
Legislature or the. State Legislature /
and the Congress In conjunction can |
forbid citizen TO drink intoxicating /
liquors or purchase them In another /
State and bring them into the State /
Of West Virginia for his own consump-H
tion: but with the very different qpes- I.
lion whether the State may forbid the /
sale OF liquor IN It's borders and make /
the delivery by carrier q sale at the
place Of delivery: and whether the /
EUuErHEx ran pruf tffbft faie trSnep0rta~ I
ti0n HI the Htake by the cosnmonI
8. e ~ = II I