The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-01-15
FULL TEXT OF DECISION OF COURT
UNFOLDING WEST VIRGINIA LAW

~ AOAA VA - 11A u w
lating the law shall not he subjec'
TO injunction rs nuisance. II the OBJ
strWCtiOn OF commerce be nuisance
subject to the remedy Of injunction
AZ was held In In Re Dcts, 1853 U. s
4 5e4. surely the active pcrversion oil
/ commerce by conveying goods to b
/ delivered in violation OF law may BIZ
enforced. The principle, which seems
too plain TOR further elaboration, !:
thus stated in the Case cited:
/ Fundamental Sovereign Right.
Every government, entrusted, By
the Very terms Of It's being. with
powers and duties to be exercised and
discharged for the general welfare,
has right to apply to its own courts
| for any proper assistance In the ex-
ercise OF the one and the discharge
1 OF the other, and II Is no sufficient
answer to its appeal 20 one of those
courts tina. II has no pecuniary In
terest in the matter. The obligations
which 1t is under to promote the in
terest OF all. and to prevent the wrong
doing of one resulting in injury to
the. general welfare, Is often OF IT.
self sufficient to give 1t standing in
court"
s.. The requirement relied on by
the express company that common
carriers shall keep books showing the
name of the consignee, etc. may bet
ter be regarded as a means of gain
ing Information upon which to seek
relief against the transportation and
delivery by carriers of contra band IL
auor as distinguished from that to be
llegitsmately used under the excep-
tons set out In the statute, than as
consent that they should transport
and deliver contraband liquor.
s. The right OF the state to an
injunction against the persistent trans-
por,ation by the express company OF
liquor to be delivered in West Viz
ginia, In pursuance of a contract Of
sale made In another State. lis rein
forced by the fact that the express
company has transported the liquor
which Clendenin was induced to order
from Beigel by solicitation through
circulars and price lists. expressly
forbidden and made criminal by Sec
ton of the statute, and that the ex-
press company intends to continue to
transport and deliver for Beigel. to
purchasers in West Virginia, liquors
which he has contracted to sell, and
intends to deliver through the express
company, on orders obtained by go
licitGtion forbidden by the statute. But
as we have endeavored 10 show, the
relief of injunction is not dependent
on this consideration
Uncle Sam Not n Guardian
Z. II makes no difference that the
United States mail was used for the
solicitation. The Federal Government
does not protect those who use its
mails to thwart the police regulations
OF a State made for the convenience
OF the welfare of it's citizens. The
Use Of the man Is a mere incident
in carrying out the Illegal act and
affords no more protection in case
like this than like use of the mails
to promote a criminal conspiracy,
or to perpetrate a murder by poison.
or TO solicit contributions Of Office
holders in violation OF the civil ser
vice law. or to obtain goods under
false pretenses. In Re Poliiser, 1876
Z. $. 25T; Z. s. US. Slayer, 2oa L. S.
SO. Havner ys. State. So Ohio iTs:
State VS. Morrow 40 8. c. 22l. IS s.
f. s53.
s. The express pany further
contends that the state Is not entitled
To an Injunction against the delivery
in West Virginia of the liquor which
1t has transported for Reigel or
against its intent.ed transportation
and delivery OF liquor which Beigel
intends to consign to other persons
that these transportations are under
Federal protection as interstate COM
merce. and beyond the reach of the
Legislature of the State. This propo-
sition is admitted to be sound. unless
the Webb Kenyon Act removes the
protection, and subjects the delivery
OF liquor In West Virginia to the in
hibition OF the State Legislature, al
though the contract OF sale be made
FsAss h. 1afS
to West Virginia.
4 Question Of Dates.
Q, The position Is untcnable that
the Webb-Kcnyon Act has no applica-
ton. and, therefore. Is without eff
ficaey to extend the scope of the State
legislation TO Interstate dealings in
liquor. because that statute was not
enacted until March 1, 1918. after
the West Virginia statute had been
passed on February IL, 1919. The
point has not been decided by the
Supreme Court of West Virginia
There is a iictum In State VS.. Miller
Sc w. Va. 1876. in favor of the posi-
ton OF the express company, where
the question was the application of
the Wilson Act to West Virginia leg
islation But as the court expressly
stated the point was not and could
not be involved since the State statute
under consideration had been re-eh-
acted, after he passage of the Wilson
Act. But even IL this had been d.
rect decision. we do not think it could
prevail against the contrary view OF
the Supreme Court of the United
States, for we venture to think the
question Is not one of the construc
ion OF State statute, hut OF the force
and effect OF Federal statute on
State law. and on such an issue the
decisions OF the Supreme Court OF the
United States are controlling. That
court thus determined the matter in
In Re Rahrer. l%o l.. s. 545. in pass
ing ON the effect OF the Wilson Bill:
Congress cid not use terms of per-
mission to the State to act. bat simply
removed an impeachment to the en-
force nlent of the State laws in respect
to imported packages In their original
created by the absence of
a specific ntterance on Its part. 1t
impaired mo power to the State not
then possessed. but allowed imported
property to fall at once upon arrival
within the local jurisdiction
This principle has been reaffirmed
in Butler VS. Gorely. las. l.. s. 500.
Ernest VS. Missouri. 1856 u. s. 2ss:
Central r. Z. r. Co. VS.. Nevada, lsz
Y. s. 5l2: Silt We. Westerherg, ell,
Z. s. 81.
Text Of the Webb Kenyon Law.
This is the Webb Kenyon Statute,
including the title:
An art 1iver+fp~ iufnyioatyr. ii