The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1916-02-04

held action the grant power
tanned in the West Virginia Prohbory Amendment No ;
doubt was bcausc the narrow view taken by the West Viz
gnia Court in the Gilman case that the amendment
framed that the legislature without delay commanded
TO such laws with regulations, conditions securities
and penalties may be necessary carry into effect the pro-
vision of the section
AS to the decision the Gilman case that the Act question
was offensive to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal
Constitution say that the view of the West Virginia
Court and hence entirely of harmony with
subsequent decisions of Supreme Court United States
which will be followed here.
Ne7p York .. HeSterbcrg, 2II u. S. 81.
Patsoue q, Penn 232 U. S. I38.
Purity En-. 6 7. CO. q, Lynch, 226 U. S. 1872
Hugzer o. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623.
1t thus appears that three which have been often cited
in litigation of this character and which relied by
appellants counsel in their former reply BRIEF have been so
explained and limited by the Courts in which said
that appellants counsel longer call them to their
sistance authorities; since the former submission of this
cause that say Ridge City of Beseue I64 Ala, $780,
has been superseded by Southern E Co. Wttle (Aa) 90
So Rep. 652 State ViamS I40 n. c. 6I8 has been
planned limited and superseded by the case of Glenn So En-
Co. (N Co. decided December Ist 1915; and State Gilman
g W. Va 49, has been explained limited and superseded by
the cases of State o. Siro and State Da7I 1895 and 1854
supra
Ceases FROM KENTUCKY AND OKLAHOMA REVIEWED.
KENTUCKY.
We need only refer to the Kentucky of Conn., Camp
beH I33 KY 5o L. R. A (NS) 12, since the later cases
from that State but follow the earlier decision The Campbell
shows very plainly that it controlled primarily by
the construction which the Court of Appeals of Kentucky
placed upon certain sections of the Kentucky Constitution the
Court saying expressly could not believe that the trainers
of the Constitution intended carefully take from the Leg
ature the power regulate the sale of liquors. and leave
power of prohibiting the possession ownership of liquor
The Court further said that the adoption of the then
Constitution containing bill of rights in language which the
Court set FORTH the guarantees the citizen would be only
empty sound the Legislature could prohibit the citizen the
right drink liquor when doing he did not offend
the laws Of decency by being intoxicated public the view of
the Court seeming be that citizen of Kentucky could not
enjoy the nalienabe rights declared by the Constitution unless
he were permitted freely become intoxicated brate and
to there Intoxicating liquors in unlimited quantities
The decision of the Kentucky Court thus resting upon pro-
visions of the State Constitution and upon extremely mar
row view of the police power of the State would be very
unsafe guide to this Court in constituting the present Cons
ton of West Virginia establishing Statewide Prohibition for
that State and conferng upon the Legislature full power to
pass all laws necessary make the States policy effective
The further general remarks the Kentucky about
the rights of his natural state and the rights of society
the individual clearly antagonc to the principles
declared by this Court in the of Mnger Kansas Cro7
ley a. Christensen Purity Extract G. Tonic Co. Lynch and
Holden Hardy which have all been cited and considered
The Kentucky Court in the Campbell also noted that
potent force of the Constitutional Convention of Kentucky
composed of those engaged in the business of manufactu
ing and selling liquors 1t could not be said that the Vest
Virginia Prohbory Amendment inspired adopted by
persons engaged the liquor traffic. but rather by those totally
opposed the traffic and bent upon its utter destruction in
West Virginia the Amendment conferrng upon the Legsa
re ample power all laws necessary to accomplish
the desired end.
OKLAHOMA.
The case of Erbare Wilson, Ok. CT. 451, 11o Pac $685.
was cited but not followed in the Idaho case ErbGyte Crane
Isl Pac 1906; deem proper however to briefly refer to
the decision.
The decided December 18 1911, prior to the
sage of the Webb-Kenyon Act.