The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1916-09-28
SPEICHER LAW is
UPHELD BY COURT
Continued from page II

Continued from page l,
the majority of vote we're cast Against
License A number of sections provide
for the regulation of sales, etc, in case
a majority vote were cast For License
1t is a character of legislation that has
become quite familiar in this and other
states and it would be unreasonable and
useless to require that every proposed
prohibition, if the vote be against Ii
canse, be in the title 1t is not neccess-
airy, as might be shown by reference to
numerous decisions. The subject of the
Act was the prohibition or regulation
of the sale of liquor, as determined by
the people, and no one who saw or
heard the title could suppose that an
Act with such title would simply sub
nit the question of Against License
or For License, without more. 1t
would be worse than useless to submit
the question to the people whether iq-
uor shall be sold and stop there. If de-
termined that 1t should not be sold then
it was eminently fitting, and 1t may be
said, necessary, in order to properly
give force to the law, to enact some
provisions and penalties to that end"
To strengthen the opinion as above
the Court sited number of decisions
bearing upon the question and cor
tinued:
THE attorneys have shown com
mendable zeal in the preparation of
their briefs and have cited, any of the
great number of decisions on the sub
iect, but we will not prolong this
opinion by referring to or discussing
many of them.
LAS the title of Act Of 1916 was to
repeal and reenact with amendments
Section of the Act Of 1914, which is
the section that had the prohibition in
it, no one ought to have been misled,
but if interested, should have examined
or inquired into the Act to see what
changes were proposed to be made.
That section, as repealed and re-
enacted with amendments by the Act
of 1916, simply took the place of the
section as originally enacted, and it was
not intended and there was no occasion
to resubmit the question whether liquor
should be sold. The title did not in
dicate that it was so intended, but on
the contrary it was simply to repeal
and reenact Section of the Act of
1911, which did submit the question of
license or no license. Section G., which
prescribes the penalties for violations
of the provisions of the preceding sec
lions, is still in force, and is of course
applicable to Section 4 as reenacted.
I'VE are therefore of the opinion
that the contention that the Act is in
valid by reason of Section 29 of Article
3 of the Constitution, is not sustained.
I'VE do not deem it necessary to dis
cuss at length the Webb-Kenyon Act
1t is sufficient to say that so far as we
are aware the Supreme Court has not
thusfar any construction on this Act
which prevents the prosecution under
our Act If it was in violation of the
laws of Maryland to bring liquor INTO
this State, as the petitioners are charg-
ed with doing, then the Webb-KenYon
Act 'divests' such liquors of their inter
state character, and the Interstate
Commerce Clause is not defense.
Without attempting to discuss the
many authorities on the subject, we
might state that the case of Adams Ex-
press Company VS.. Kentucky. refers to
many of the cases. AS each of the
warrants under which these parties
were arrested alleges that he did I'M
lawfully carry and bring into Garrett
county intoxicating liquors. in quantity
greater than one quart, to-wit: II
quart bottles and one pint of whiskey,'
the very language of the statute is
followed, and it was a violation of the
Maryland law, if as charged IN the
Warrants. "
The order of the Court directed that
In each of the above cases the petit
ton for habeas corpus be dismissed.