Arizona republican., 1916-02-14
GOOD ROADS DAY
The Personal Use" Decision

The decision supreme court uphodine the right of citizen introduce intoxicating li- quor into this state for his personal unexpected Without the Webb Kenyon the importation of liquor into any state, regardless of ;he legislation in that state is allowable under interstate commerce regulations. Without that act one could introduce liquor for any purpose. to dispose of sell He could of course, be punished under prohibition amendment for making such disposition of it but he could not be punished for the of introducing it.
 Put with the Webb Kenyon in force mty be punished for introducing liquor into this state for other than personal use-that is for any use of it violation of the law of the But the holding of liquor in possession the drinking of it is no. prohibited by the law such of t would not be in violation of the amend ment, that under the Webb Kenyon liquor might he introduced for that purpose. That mat had already been settled the United States supreme court.
 It is interesting review the circum- stances in which the prohibition amendment adopted separate the clements that supported the amendment and consider their motives. This is something that we believe is not generally derstood There were three elements which may have understood the motives of another: the prohibition, the temperance and the anti-saoon elements. But they worked harmonious y the two former doubtless believing that the amendment would effect the complete exclusion of liquor from the state. We believe that that was the view then held by G. F. Rinehart the re- puted head the forces behind the amendment He supposed to represent the anti-saloon league and he certainly the leader of what VIC may broadly call the temperance forces.
 The direct representative of the anti i-saloon league was A. M Bucknam of Chicago, who is still the representative of the leagre in this state. He probably accomplished more than any other one man in the prohibition campaign His work begun before there a general understanding that there was going be a campaign. It conducted quietly and oy organization
 It is not known what Mir. Bucknam thought dur ing the campaign would be the effect of the amendment. But after the amendment had been ratified he stated in interview in The Re- publican and later in interview in the Bsbee Review, which at the same time printed an ex- haustive legal opinion procured by him, the amendment did not prohibit the introduction of n toxicating liquor for personal use He added that such prohibition had not been contemplated at the time the amendment was framed. We recall that local temperance workers disagreed with MT. Buck , It is also stated that in the course of the al guments before the United States court Los Angeles the cOnstitutionaty of the amendment. Nr Rinehait himself admitted that the law did not prohibit the introduction of liquor for per sonal use.
 We believe that many of the temperance leaders during the campaign that the amend ment could not have that effect but that they counted upon supplementary legislation by the legs lare to define and denounce other viola lions of the law so make the Webb Kenyon act applicable the introduction of liquor for any purpose The Drachman bill would have produced practically such application.
 That bill and even more rigid legislation ad- vooated by Mir. Rinehart but MT. Bucknam having gained all that the nti-saloon league was fighting for. evidently feared that if the regulations were made rigid another campaign would be pre- ciptated resulting in the repeal of the amendment. He content. apparently to hold what had been gained advantage in the fight for national prohibition to which the ant-saloOn league is looking The capture Of Arizona while regarded by temper people generally unqualified and decisive victory the power, looked upon by of successful "nbbling," to a grown of the present giving it stronger position in the greater battle