The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-08-20
THE WEBB X E,NYON
LAW AND THE STATE
TT-SHIPPING BILLS.

/ (The Virginian has received the fol-
lowing very interesting discussion of
the Webb-Kenyon interstate shipping
+ law and court decisions thereon from
/ Ex-Chief Justice Samuel ID. Weakiey,
{ of the Alabama Supreme Court.-Edi-
tor Virginian.)
! Editor Virginin
/ Sir.-The Webb-Kenyon law became
i effective on March /, 1913. after its
passage over the veto of President
+ Taft Although the law has been sus-
| tanned by the Supreme Courts Of a
number of States, and by the United
States Circuit Court of Appeals at
! Richmond the first case involving the
statute to reach the Supreme Court
of the United States was that of Ad-
ans Express Co. VIZ. Commonwealth
( of Kentucky. decided June IA. 1915.
The case went up from the Whitley
County Circuit Court direct to the Su-
/ preme Court, because the fine of fifty
dollars was insufficient to authorize
an appeal to the Court of Appeals Of
/ Kentucky, the highest court OF that
State. Another case of like kind, in
which n fine of one hundred dollars
! was assessed, was carried to the Ken
{ iuthS 1outt vi ApptdASb anu III tHC
meantime was decided by that court.
! The holding was that a shipment of
/ liquor for personal use did not offend
the laws Of Kentucky, because the
court in constituting the Kentucky
: Constitution decided the Legisla ture
had no right in that State to interfere
7 with a citizen in obtaining liquor for
his own use. Adams Express Com
pany VS.. Kentucky, 154-Ky. 462: IS
i l.. X. A. IN. 50 SAG. The provision
of the Constitution which produced
this decision is not to he found, as
! far, as the writer of this article has
I been able to ascertain. in the Consti
/ tuition of any other State. Hence. the
Kentucky decision is not controlling
. elsewhere, where the state Constitu-
tion is different That case was re-
j Gently pressed on the Supreme Court
| of Alabama in the case of Southern
! Express Company VS.. Whittle, decided
/. June II. 1915, but the court declined
to follow II as an authority; per con-
/ ira. the court held under the Ala oama
!, Constitution, and the fourteenth
amendment to the Federal Constitu-
ton in connection with the Webb
/ Kenyon law, that the Legislature Of
Alabama had the power to make it
unlawful for a citizen of Alabama to
accept delivery of, or to possess at
one time more than two quarts of
spirituous liquor, or more than four
/ quarts in four weeks. even If it were
lucky case reached t'1e supreme Court
of the United states, that court merely
followed the decision of the Court of
Appeals of Kentucky in ascertaining
whether the shipment of liquor was
/ offensive to the Kentucky law: the
} court finding that the ,'igh"-t court Of
/ Kentucky had decided a shipment for
personal use to be no violation of the
law of that State. 1t followed as a
matter of course that the shipment
was not within the terms of Webb
Kenyon law. This resulted because
the Federal Statute prohibits ship
lments of liquor from one State into
another only when 1T is intended by
any person interested therein to be
received. possessed sold. or In any
other manner used In violation of amy
/ law OF sudh State" Upon that same
! line of reasoning, the Supreme Court
| of the United States will follow the
| highest court Of Alabama, and will
! hold. II the Alabama case be carried
/ to Washington, that the Alabama
1 Statute does present a case within the
| Webb Kenyon law. The case has not
| yet been appealed. and my predic-
/ ton is that 1t will not be. since the
attorneys for the wholesale liquor
dealers we'll knew the very limited
value of the Kentucky decision. and
probably do not wish a case to 90
presented to the United States Su-
preme Court that will so clearly pre-
sent the question of the constitutions
atty of the Webb Kenyon law as r.e
/ Ala h9 ma 3Sa would dn In the Ka~.