The record. [volume] (St. Maries, Idaho) 1913-1918, 1915-06-22
Test New Pro-
hibiti0n Law

The constilutionalily of The
prohibition act, known as senate
bill No. so, passed by the last leg
islature, was raised before the SUI
preme court of this state Salur-
day when the application for a
writ Of habeas corpus made i'm
The case OF i'm re Crane was ar
gued and submitted A galaxy
Of legal lights appeared ON behalf
and against the petition and as
friends of the court. They in
cluded Judge Forney of Moscow.
candidate for congress ON the
Democratic ticket a year ago; F.
Moore, of Moscow, prominent i'm
Democratic politics; H. II. Tay-
lor of Standpoint, lieutenant gov -
ernOr of the slate; Harry S. Kes-
sler, of Boise; Cleve Groone of
Caldwell; T. C. Coffin and Herbert
Wing, assistant attorneys gener-
al. Judge Forney appeared for
the plaintiff, Frank Moore for the
prosecution, Attorneys Kesseler,
Groone and Taylor as friends of
Che court. Mr.. Keseler repre-
scented the temperance organiza-
lions of the state
Claim for the authorship of the
act passed by the last legislature
rr the amendatory local option
bill said to be the strictest mea-
sure of its kind ON The statute
hooks of any state, wah made by
Lieutenant Governor Taylor. Com
ceding to the court during his ar
gument that he had been consid-
cred in the past and during the
last session of the legislature as
a wet" he informed that tribunal
that he had offered and did draft
the stringent act finally passed,
following a joint committee meet
ing OF the leaders of the house
and senate when three proposed
measures were presented, and ne
was prepared TO denfend it and
state positively to- the court there
were no jokers in it. Any al
tempt TO show there was ne said
was but an effort TO trine with
the measure.
Don't be misled by the claim
that the last legislature did not
intend to make mere Dossession of
liquor a crime, because it did, ="
said the lieutenant governor dur
ing his argument championing
The act. Briny summarized, he
commended possession of liquor is
traffic and traffic is barred by the
terms of the act; that temperance
in the modern construction plac-
ed on the term is not entirely
modification but is strictly speak
ing prohibition; that possession
Of any spurious liquor is a crime
except for mechanical purposes,
medicinal or scientific purposes,
that whiskey is absolutely contra
band under the terms of the act
now i'm effect in dry counties and
will be contraband on and after
Jan. 4, 1916, in the entire state.
The question of possession is
the one issue around which most
of the argument revolvel. In fact
this is the issue involved in the
Crane case. Crane was arrest
cd and a bottle of whiskey found
in his possession. It was con-
tended that he had violated the
law as in force and effect in La
tab county. lie was incarcerat-
ed and by carrying an appeal to
the supreme court on an applica-
ton for a writ of habeas corpus
he raised the issue OF the con-
stitutionalily of the act.
One illustration that was made
to the court brought out an in
teresting point on possession.
Counsel defending the act was
asked what would be the result if
person picked up a bottle Of
whiskey having found it and was
arrested later with it i'm his pos
session. Lieutenant Governor
Taylor met this by saying that the
law was mades trict TO cover
bootlegging in this manner for
If it did not cover cases of this
kind a man engaged i'm the wills
key traffic could leave a bottle of
whiskey any place and the buyer
engaged in the traffic could leave
a dollar in payment for it i'm some
nIhnn nlnnn ,,.hinh ,,-n1,ll IL ..i-In