Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1915-06-15
History of Case

The question Of the constitutiOnahty
Of the Webb Kenyon liquor law was
raised long before its enactment in
1913 by Congress. and questions over
its construction were raised immedi-
atey after II went into effect.
The law was entitled AN act di-
vesting intoxicating liquors Of their
interstate character in certain cases.
II provided in a few words that the
shipment Of intoxicating liquors from
one state 10 another. which
Intoxicating liquor IS intended by any
person Interested therein. 10 De re-
ccived, possessed. sold, or in any man
ner used in violation Of any
Inv If such state is hereby pro-
hihited."
Twenty-four days after the law was
enacted by Congress over President
Taft3 veto. d grand jury in Whitley
County. ~. dry county" indicted
the Adams Express Company for carry
Ing intoxicating liquor from Tennessee
into Whitley County. in violation Of the
Kentucky statute making it. unlawful
70 carry into dry territory The COM
pa?y vas fined $50, so small a fine
that it could not appeal to the higher
Kentucky courts so an appeal was
taken directly to the United States SUI
prenc Court.
Six weeks before the passage Of the
law, however. West Virginia had en-
acted a state prohibition law. Shortly
after ir became effective in July 1914.
the James Clark Distilling Company.
of Cumberland, Md. received by mail
a written order from Parsons, w. Va.
for alcohol for personal use. The COM
pany offered the American Express
Company the liquor but it refused TO
carry it because the West Virginia
state courts had already enjoined it
from transporting liquor to Parsons,
except on certain conditions. The dis
tilling company thereupOn brought suit
for an injunction TO compel the express
company to carry the liquor The in
junction was refused, and the case was
appealed to the Supreme Court.
The two cases were brought together
for decision. IN both, the question CEN
tered on whether the Webb Kenyon
law made the respective state laws ap-
plicable to the interstate shipments. In
both, the liquor interests contended
that the Webb-Kenyon law was un
constitutional. and attorneys for the
anti-saloon league and the states ar
gued that it was valid.
The argument Of unConstitutionality
was passed on the claim that the States
cannot regulate interstate commerce
and Congress cannot delegate power
to them to do so. It's validity was
urged on the ground that Congress,
t,o tp y,rnhi11ir antiraIyy
liquor shipments could prohibit a part
thereof.
The principal difference as to con-
struction of the law arose over whether
1t applied TO shipments intended for
personal use. Few Of the states, if any,
had laws until the last year making it
unlawful to use liquor. In Feb. 1915.
West Virginia enacted such a law.
Another disputed point of construc-
ton was whether the Intention re-
ferred to in the Webb-Kenyon law was
the intention of the express company
that the liquor should be used in VIOLA
lion Of law, or merely the intention of
the consignee that it should be received,
possessed sold or used In violation of
law.
Several points as to the validity and
construction OF the state liquor laws,
were involved in one OF the other cases.
One was whether state may make the
place OF delivery Of interstate ship
ments the place Of sale within the
meaning of their law prohibiting the
sale Of liquor. Another question was
whether a state may make it an Of
Tense for a nonresident dealer to So
licit by mail orders from citizens of
The state for the sale of liquor.
Similar points as to the constitu-
tionality and construction Of the Webb
Kenyon law have arisen in Delaware.
Tennessee. iowa, Texas Alabama,
North Carolina, Virginia, Kansas,
South Carolina, Mississippi and Idaho.