The Sunday telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1914-1927, 1915-12-26

OF chapter z, Of the acts of the legis-
lature of 1915. Is unconstitutional and
void. Counsel argues at great length
to prove that the Legislature could
pass no valid act making IL an oifense
for person. to have in his possess
sion liquors, unless for some improp-
er purpose. The case of the state v.
Gilman, SO West Virginia, ms, is cited,
among others, and relied upon Us sus-
tanning this 5contention. This court
held in state ". Gilman that a statute
which provides that no person With
out state license therefor shall keep
In his possession for another. spirit
uous liquors, ETC., is unconstitutional
and void Under thelstatute involved
In that case twas made unlawful for
any person without state license
therefor, TO keep In his possession for
another, spirituous liquors. but sec
ton 81, chapter q. supra. now under
discussion. only makes II unlawful
for any person to bring or carry into
the state. or from one place 10 another
within the state. even when intended
Y For Personal Use,
liquors exceeding in the aggregate one
half OF one gallon In quantity unless
there is plainly printed or written on
the side or top OF the suit case, trunk
or other container in large display
letters. in the English language, the
contents OF the container or contains
ers, and the quantity and kind of liz
uors contained therein This statute
does not prohibit q person from hav-
ing In his possession liquors for per-
sonal use, when properly marked or
labeled. The prohibition OF the mere
possession of intoxicating iiquors, and
reasonable regulation requiring them
to be marked or labeled when brought
into the state or carried from ons
place to another within the state. are
quite different things. The case Of
state v. Gilman, supra, is authority
for the proposition that a statute pro-
hibiting the keeping Of liquors by one
person for another, without a state
license therefor, is unconstitutional,
and void. under the constitution then
In force; but II does not follow that
the Legislature In the exercise Of the
police power, may not provide reason.
able regulation as to the conditions
upon which Intoxicating liquors may
be brought into the state, or carried
from one place to another within the
state. ny Na ~ est'rF
"since the case of state W Gilman
was, decided, the constitution Of the
state has been amended. The constI-
tuition as amended prohibits the man
ufacture, and keeping for sale OF malt,
vinous and spirituous liquors, etc,
and requires the legislature to enact
such laws; with regulations, .condi-
tons, securities and penalties.as may
be necessary to carry into effect the
provisions OF this section This amend
ment became effective July J., 1914. II
is the duty of the legislature to enact
such laws us may be necessary to
make effective this provision OF the
constitution as amended. The legis-
lature, responsive to this requirement
Of the constitution. has deemed II wise
to require liquors brought into the
state, or carried from one place to an
other within the state In quantities OF
one-half gallon or more to be marked
or labeled. Whether or not this is a
wise policy is not for the contrs 10
determine. II the Legislature has not
Exceeded It's Powers, rad
the courts cannot interfere. The
courts may decided whether or not the
legislature had the power to establish
these regulations, but they cannot
prescribe the policy,if within the leg
islative limits; this would be to sub
ordinate the will OF the legislature to
the opinion Of the courts. itiS 2
1.-THE regulations provided for In
said section requiring liquors brought
into the state, or carried from one
place to another within the state, ex-
ceeding in the aggregate one-half of
one gallon in quantity, to be marked
or labeled, do not seem to be unrea-
sonable. or as imposing any hardship
upon persons who do not wish to vio-
late the law. In a we'll considered
case OF Purity Extract and Tonic Conn
pany VI Lynch, 22s United States 1872.