Weekly journal-miner., 1915-08-04
LIQUOR CAN BE I'M
 PORTED FOR PERSONAL USE


 a request from A. R. Bucknam, gen eral secretary of the Arizona Tenn perance Federation who is prosecut ing at present a campaign for real temperance in Cochise county, a prominent lawyer of this state furn- ished the following legal opinion as to the right of citizens to import al coholic beverages into Arizona for personal use:
 The question you submitted to me and it Is the sole question ] shall con slider, is: Can one import intoXicat- ing liquors into the State of Arizona for his personal use without violating the Arizona constitutional amend ment, article XXIII? This amend ment is known as the prohibition amendment and reads as follows:
 Ardent spirits, ale. beer, wine, or intoxicating liquor or liquors of what ever kind shall not be manufactured in Or introduced into the State of Ari- zona under any pretense. Every per son who sells. exchanges, gives, bar ters, or disposes of any ardent spirits, ale, beer, wine, or intoxicating liquor of any kind to any person in the State of Arizona, or who manufactures, or introduces into, or attempts to intro duce into the State of Arizona any ardent spirits, ale, beer, wine or in toXicating liquor of any kind shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.'
 By careful reading of the above amendment it will be found that it is not unlawful for one to use intoXicat- ing liquors If he possesses them The punishment Is directed towards those who may sell exchange, give, barter or dispose of intoxicating liquors within the State of Arizona. The phrase under any pretense' is neces- sarily limited to a violation of the amendment and as it is not unlawful to use intoxicating liquors the inevit- able conclusion is that it is not un- lawful to ship into the State intoxicat- ing liquors for ones personal use. The phrase under any pretense' must mean that no person shall sell, eX- change, give away, barter, or dispose of intoxicating liquors under any pre- tense,-as for example, grocery store could have large quantities of liquors on hand; could sell one dol lars worth of coffee for two dollars, | deliver one dollars worth of coffee Ito the purchaser and one dollars worth of liquor. Such a deal would be a pretense, and in violation of the amendment But the amendment for bids the introduction of intoxicating l liquors into the State of Arizona and the words shall not be introduced in 10 the State of Arizona are incorporated in the amendment This means shall not be introduced into the State of Arizona for an unlawful purpose and as one may use intoxicat- ing liquors if he possesses them then the only rational conclusion is that any person may ship into the State of Arizona liquors for his personal use.
 This construction in no wise con fiicts with what is known as the Webb-kenyon law.
 We may also here observe that the history of the Webb-Kenyon law; the causes that led to its enactment, and the evils 1t was intended to remedy, taken in connection with the carefully chosen words of the act. show that the object was to aid the states in suppressino the illegal traffic in in toXicating liquors and that it was not meant by this legislation to in any manner abridge the personal liberty of the citizens in the right to personally use liquor or the right to have it in his possession for use" Adams Exp. Co. vs Commonwealth, i (Ky); AS L. R. A. N. s. 342
 Could the common carrier be pun ished for shipping into the State of Arizona to one for his own personal use? In answering this question i quote from the above authority, AS L. R. A. \. s. page 348, as follows
 Was the liquor involved in this . transaction intended by any person interested therein to be received, pos | sessed, sold, or in any manner used ! in violation of any law of the State? |. This being true, the aid of i the Webb-kenyon law cannot be in | voked to secure tue punishment of the carrier, as 1t does not prohibit com mon carrier from receiving, carrying, and delivering, as an interstate trans action, intoxicating liquor to the con- signee when 1t IS not intended by any person interested therein to be receiv- ed, possessed, sold, or in any manner used in violation of the laws of this state - As to this character of transaction, the Webb-Kenyon law has no application, and, having no ap- plication, the law. as it existed before the enactment of this legislation.
 the carrier cannot be pun ished for receiving, carrying, and de- livering, as an interstate transaction, intoxicating liquor in a local option territory to a consignee who purchas- ed it at a point in another state, when 1t is not intended by any person inter ested therein to be received, possess ed, sold, or in any manner used in violation of the law of this state
 The South Carolina statute read ing in part as follows. we think will give us information as to whether one may ship into Arizona, liquors for his personal use, to-wit: No per son .. shall bring into "this state any liquor or liquids contain ing alcohol
 Tn construing the meaning of s. C. law, the Supreme court of the State said: It follows that. under the con stitution of the United States, every resident of South Carolina is free to receive for his own use liquor from other states, and that the inhibitions of the state statute do not operate to