The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-01-15
Federal Law Does Not Uphold
A Traffic Which Violates the
Laws of the State.
DECISION CLEAR
CUT THROUGHOUT.
No Ambiguity in Language
Used Which Frees State
From Liquor Advertising
and Soliciting Campaigns.

AOAAA AAAsi0o ~~~ - S'~AAAf =
and Soliciting Campaigns.
No court decision of recent years
aroused go much interest yesterday al
that handed down by the United
States Circuit Court OF Appeals here
UNFOLDING the West Virginia prohi-
bition laws.
While the gist of the decision was
printed in The virgtnian yesterday,
the effect Of the courts action Is so
far reaching, the text OF the decision
is herewith given.
United States Circuit Court of Appeals
Fourth Circuit.
No. 1925.
State of West Virginia.
Appellant,
Versus
Adams Express Company, Association
Appellee,
Appeal from the District Court OF
the United States for the Southern
District of West Virginia. at Charles
ton.
argued December .. 1914. Decided
January Is. 1910
Before Knapp and Woods, Circuit
Judges. and waddill. District Judge.
Fred q. Blue and Wayne - Wheeler
for Appellant. and George +. Price and
Joseph 8. Graydon. Lawrence Max
well on brief, for Appellee.
Woods. Circuit Judge;
The State Of West Virginia brought
this suit in the Circuit Court of Ka-
nawha County against the Adams Ex-
presx Company. r. H. CIendenin and
Edward Beigei; alleging that Beigei.
a resident OF Cincinnati, Ohio. sent
through the mails to many persons
in West Virginia circular letters SO
liciting the purchase of Intoxicating
liquors. contrary TO the law OF the
State: that Clendenin, induced by the
solicitation. ordered from Beigei one
fourth OF barrel OF beer which was
carried by the Adams Express Com
pany from Cincinnati to Charleston,
Wes. Virginia, and was there held by
the carrier ready for delivery when
the bill was flied: and that Beigei, in
tends to continue to ship into West
Virginia by the defendant express
company beer on orders SO solicited
The breach Of duty to the State al
legged against the express comp any was
its failure to use due diligence to
ascertain before carving the beer
whether tho contract tor its sale was
made In pursuance of an illegal
scheme OF solicitation. and that by
delivering the beer, RS ii intended IL
would aid Reigel In his unlawful at
efH Yt ia make sales In West " ssa ta4a
place Of delivery tho place OF sale.
Beige. was. not served The relief
asked, with which we are now con-
csrned In that the State ''be
awarded an injunction against the
said defendant the Adams Express
Company. restraining It. fits agents.
employees and representatives from
delivering to the defendant Il. II,
Clendenin, the consignment aforesaid
of cne-fourth barrel OF draught beer,
and that defendant. the Adams Ex-
press Company, Its agents employees
and representatives, he ertoined from
delivering to the defendant. or to any
ether person. any shipmentsof liquors
manufactured by the pahst Brewing
Company and handled by said defend
ant Relgei. or any of his agents. rep
rescntatives or employees. at any place
where defendant express company OPP
crates In the State OF West Virginia.
within the jurisdiction OF the court.
unless the consignee of any such IL
ouors can show tn the satisfa ction
OF the defendant express company, its
agents. representatives and employees.
that he without solicitation from said
oNkAGAs vi ~aus vi itAS aSNsttG.
sentatives or employees. ordered the
consignment of liquors for his own
personal. lawful use without having
received from said Beigei, or any Of
his agents. representatives or EN-
ptoyes, advertisements or letters So
iiciting orders for liquors. or price
lists or order blanks advertising or SO
iiciting from the consignee orders for
liquors.
History of Preliminary Procedure.
A preliminary order of Injunction
was made by the State Court, but up
on removal of the cause to the Dis
trio, Court for the Southern District,
the District Judge on motion of the
Adams Express Company, dissolved
the injunction and dismissed the bill.
holding that the State law could not
prevent solicitation through the United
States mails for the sale OF liquor. and
that there is nothing in the Wilson
Act. or the Webb-Kenyon Act, which
authorizes the State to interfere With
the shipmen. and delivery OF liquors
ordered by citizen OF West Virginia
for his own personal use from a Ii
censed dealer without the State.
The appeal requires a consideration
Of the scope and effect of the West
Virginia Constitutional and Statute
law and the effect upon II OF the Act
OF Cong ress of March 1. 1918, known
as the Webb Kenyon Act.
1. In trying to comprehend the
Legislative purpose In prohibition
statutes, II Il important to remember
that the ultimate end sought In pro-
taibition legislation IL not the prcvcn-
ton or restriction OF the mere sale
Of intoxicants. but the prevention Of
their consumption as . beverage.
The sale being the most usual and
Obvious means by which drinking is
accom- piisheL, legislation is more Of
ten directed against tho sale. But Ii
Is upon the recognized evil of indi-
eidual consumption as beverage that
the right OF the State, under its POI
lice power. rests to enact prohibitive
legislation; and In the exercise Of that
right Ii eaRHat be denied that the
State may lesislate. not only against
acts which would constitute n sale at
common law. but against other acts
wit hin Its borders. such as deliveries
by common carriers, which tend to
defeat or weaken its public policy OF
preventing the consumption OF liquor
rs q beverage.
Main Question nj Issue.
WI. are not concerned In this case
with the question whether the state
Legislature or the State Legislature
and the Congress In conjunction, can
forbid y citizen TO drink intoxicating
liquors, or purchase them In another
state and hiring them into the State
of West Virginia. for his own CON-
" q Ia