Arizona republican., 1915-03-15
WEbb-kENY0N
 LAW N0T DEAD
Attorney General Wiley E. Jones Corrects Idea That Liquor Can Be Shipped in for Personal Use-Dc- cisions Explained

Correcting the impression that the Webb Kenyon law has been held un- constitutional by the recent decisions or the United States supreme court. and that intoxicating liquors may be imported into Arizona for personal use' the following letter has been re- ceived from Attorney General Wiley F. Jones' relative to the scope of the decisions:
 office of the Attorney General,
 Phoenix, Arizona. March 13, 1915. Editor Arizona Republican:
 Numerous inquiries have come to this office in reference to the decision of the United States supreme court on the 1st instant, in the case of Kirmeyer Vs. State of Kansas, men, toned in the Associated Press dis patches of the Arizona Republican, as well as the decision of the same high court in the case of Vance Vs. Van derhook, mentioned in the Douglas h. ternational, with comment thereon by a prominent attorney of Douglas.
 From the inquiries made to me. I ascertain that there is an impression gaining ground that intoxicating li- quors can be imported or introduced into the state of Arizona for per sonal use" under said decisions re- gardless of the new prohibition amendment to our state constitution, as well as regardless alike of. the Webb Kenyon law of congress, which law. it is reported is overruled as unconstitutional by the foregoing decisions This impression is CT roneous and I write this for the purpose of correcting such impress sion.
 The Vance vs. Vanderhook case above mentioned appears in the 110th Y. s. supreme court report a page ABS and was decided May 2. 1898. almost seventeen years ago.
 The case of Kimberly vs State of Kansas arose in the Spring of 1912 and arose from the introduction of liquors from Stillings. Missouri. in to Leavenworth, Kansas. about one and one-half miles distant and a sale O: the liquors in Kansas; the case was originally decided in the district court of Leavenworth county Kan sas, July 20. 1912 On appeal to the supreme court of Kansas. judgment was rendered for the state. Janu- arv II. 1913 (See 12S Pac. Rep. 1114) almost seven weeks before the passage of the Webb Kenyon law by congress. and which became a law March 1. 1913: thus it will be seen that both these cases arose long before the passage of the Webb Kenyon act prohibiting the importa = tion or introduction of intoxicating liquors into any state, to be received into the state in violation of the laws of such state. In fact, congress passed the Webb Kenyon act by a two-thirds vote of both houses of congress, over the veto of President Taft. only three days before Presi- dent Wilson was inaugurated, tC meet just such cases The Kirmeyei case so recently decided by the U S supreme court, has been in the courts ever since the sale complains ed of was made by Kirmeyer in the spring of 1912. nearly three years ago.
 There are many worthy people who may have erroneous impressions or this subject, from misapprehensiOr of the facts and the dates. involved in the Webb Kenyon law and tho decisions above referred to, and my purpose is to correct any such error
 The Webb Kenyon law has no been overruled but is a living, vita law of the United States. and il full force at this time. The new constitutional amendment likewise i! in full force in Arizona. and I hop, the information herein contained may be appreciated by Whomeve may be misled through a misunder standing of the actual facts. date and circumstances touching the tw, decisions above mentioned, and tn Webb Kenyon law herein referred to
 WILEY E. JONES,
 Attorney General of Arizona.