The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1916-02-01


that person should acquire any property in them for such
purpose there would be occasion for complaint that It
had violated any provision of the Constitution
In Hey1gayd Henderson, 100 Ga 373, II L. K A 80, II
Am St. Rep 1884, the Court dealt with municipal ordinance
making penal the buying of alcoholic liquor 1t was held that
without express legislative authority the city under the general
welfare of its charter could not enact such ordnance
since the Legislature of the State had adopted the policy
of forbidding the buying of such liquor And yet upon the
question now under consideration Judge Cobb speaking for
the Court, said:
T may be that the State would have right prohibit the
purchase of whskey that the State has right prohibit abso
ley the whskey longer open question either IN
this Court the Supreme Court Of the United States And
furthermore 1t may be contended with great force that II the
State whstanding his recognized property right IN alco-
ho1c liquors. under police power entirely destroy the
right of the owner of said liquors to sell dispose OF the
same within the limits of the State which would in
stances be practical conscaon of the property 1t has the
power to declare that no person shall by purchase come into
possession of such property within the limits OF the State
Laws prohibiting the sale of whisey upheld constu
tiona upon the ground that its sale against the best interest
of the public at large and business which, if not inherently
evil is of such that its presence constant menace
to the peace and good order of society," well the welfare
of individuals # this be trae it would seem to follow that
the State might any law which would eectuay prohibit
the traffic. law prohibiting the sale would II eectualy
the purchase would likewise prohibit the SALE The prohibition
of the sale therefore, puts ban upon the entire traffic OF
course law making penal the sale would not without more
make penal the buying the practical effect Of such law
if enforced would be prohibit the buying 1t would seem to
follow therefore, that the State might further than 1t has
already gone and make penal the buying"
In So Ex Co. o. High Point IN. C) 80 S. E. 254, 255,
Chief Justice Clark in a concurring opinion, said:
There is nothing in the State Federal Constitution
which prohibits the people of North Carolina speaking through
the Legislature to prohibit manufacture of Intoxicating
liquors even solely for ones This is held in Magler
o. Kansas 12 u S. 62 it following that the Legislature
equally prohibit the importation of such liquors by any person
for his own use and foror forbid carrier
to bring import such liquors, irrespective whether
is for the consignee's o0m or not.
-sTATE DECISIONS SUSTAINING RECENT STATE LAWS WHICH
ARE CONTRARY TO APPELLANTS CONTENTION AS TO RIGHT
OF CITIZEN TO RECEIVE AND POSSESS LIQUORS
soNAL USE.
ALABAMA
The Legislature of Alabama at its recent session passed
law effective February 8h 1915, containing, among Others
the following provision:
Section That shall be unlawful for any person. firm,
or corporation receive accept delivery Of to pos
sess have possession any time, whether in one
or Places and whether original packages otherwise
than oneha gallon of spruous liquors. or more than
gallons of vinous liquors. than hve gallons OF
matted liquors. when in kegs, than sixty pnts when
bottles than gallon of any other intoxicating
fernented liquors beyond those thus eumerated 81
to receive accept delivery Of possess have in possession
than gallon of pirtuou liquors. four gallons of
vinous liquors. than gallons Of matted liquors,
including beer and ale when in kegs, hundred and
twenty pnts in bottles than gallons of any other
ferrented Intoxicating liquors beyond those enumerated
within any four consecutive weeks whether in more
places"
The statute applies to liquors matter when how, or
whence obtained
This statute was assailed by Whtle, liquor dealer
of Pensacola Florida who sought compel the Southern Ex
press Company receive for delivery in dry territory I'M
Alabama, six quarts of whiskey for personal use
The Supreme Court of Alabama held that the Express
Company properly refused to accept the for Shipment
because intended be received the consignee Farmer
in violation of the limitation of onehaf gallon of sprtuous
liquors time prescribed by the terms Of said Section r.