The Birmingham age-herald., 1915-03-20
JUDGE GUNTER HOLDS BONNER LIQUOR LAW
 UNCONSTITUTIONAL
tContinued from Page One,

lowing the refusal of the express com
 pany to accept for delivery from Pensa- cola six quarts of liquor to consignee in Montgomery county. Argument on the case was heard by Judge Gunter about
 three weeks ago.
 | Notice of Appeal
 Immediately after the decision was ren- dered, notice of appeal to the supreme court was takn, and the case will pr0b- ably be acted upon by the higher tri- bunal in April. The defendant express company, through it's attorneys George w. Jones, Manly Foster and S. L. Field. filed the notice Attorney General Will liam l.. Martin appeared as amicus curiae in the case.
 The principal ground on which Judge Gunter granted the injunction was that the Bonner act is a regulation of inter- state commerce, and, therefore void in- asmuch as Congress has never delegated | to a state the authority to regulate such commerce.
 l Tt is further automatic in the law l that Congress aloSe is delegated the | authority to regulate interstate commerce and that any attempt by Congress to delegate to the states the authority to
 regulate by legislation Interstate com-
 merce is void as being in violation of
 the federal constitution said Judge Gun 1 ter 50, if the Webb-Kenyon act is a l delegation to the several states of au- | thority to regulate interstate commerce l it is vioatve of the federal coffUhita1 | tion, and therefore, void. If. however, the Webb Kenyon act does not delegate l to the states authority 10 regulate by legislation interstate commerce. and the antishipping act attempts to regulate in@ terstate commerce, then the antishipping act must fall as being in violation of the federal constitution
 Not Clearly Defined
 In concluding his decision Judge | Gunter declared that the police power l of the state has never been clearly de . l fined, although the state, under it's | rolice power, may put intoxicating g 1 liquors under the ban of a sumptuary ! law and make the sale, or even pos i session of such liquors a criminal act. Judge Gunter concluded his deciison | in the following language:
 "The limits of the police power of | the state have never been precisely defined, indeed, it is impossible to do, but the scope of the same is troad. I liberal and comprehensive. It has uni 1 versally been held that the police 1 power is reserved to the several states I and not granted to the federal govern 1 ment. By reason fthe fact. however,
 that the use of opium, morphine, CO., | caine and other drugs have a deliter- | ious effect upon the human mind and body and desiring to prevent the use of these poisons,, Congress, under the ! interstate commerce clause, has de l Clared these drugs to be contrapand and has practically outlawed them | from the channels of ordinary com
 merce and trade, putting the most far- 1 reaching restrictions upon the use by 1 recipients of these articles through
 interstate commerce. Under the police | power the state may supplement these laws by passing laws against the man. ufacture and use of such drugs and
 the possession of the same within the state. And who can gainsay the right of the state under it's police power tt put intoxicating liquors of all kinds under the ban of a sumptuary law and make the sale, use, or even session
 of such intoxicating liquors of any kind a criminal act.
 l Protection Denied
 1 'If the statutes of Alabama have l gone to this extent, the Webb-ken- | 0 fits provisions and intoxicating | liquors are and would be denied the | protection of interstate commerce, as | my construction of the Webb bkenyoI
 act so far as is material, in this case
 assuming it's validity, Is, that the in- 1 terstate shipments of intoxicating | liquors is prohibited when it is in- | tended by any person interested there | in. that the person receiving the game | will violate a police regulation of the state, also when it is violation o'
 the state law that person is in pos. session of such liquors( not the luan- | tlty of such liquor, but the articie it- | self) or when 1t is intended that the use of such liquors will be a use for bidden by the statute. Under the anti shipping act. however. the possessio,
 of liquors in certain quantities fol personal and family use is recognized
 as lawful and as the act attempt: l to regulate the amount of liquors tha'
 person may lawfully have iE hii | possession, under a interstate ship. ment the law is necessarily regula
 ton Interstate commerce forbidiinl
 the shipment of larger amounts arc | is therefore void as violation of tho constitution of the United States. q have read and considered all O. 1 the cases cited in the briefs of coun
 Ssel and many others found by inde rendent investigation and while ths decisions are not altogether harmon
 ious in my opinion the highes tauthor.
 ity and reason are against the validit, | of the act.
 "Thc cases in this state. in the su. preme court of the United States. the courts of North Carolina, Kentucky
 Delaware and the courts of Tennessee where almost this identical question
 was involved, are in accord with tht
 views herein expressed"