Arizona republican., 1916-02-13
Holds No Crime to Drink or Possess Liquor, Therefore Unconstitutional to Pro hibit Introduction for Per sOnal Use

SOlIdl V SS
 That one may bring liquor into the state of Arizona for personal use was held by the supreme court yesterday inS an opinion reversing the court be- low in the case of W. J. Steurgeon, ap- pellant against the state, respondent from Yuma county. The defendant had been tried for introducing a bottle of wine across the line at Yuma. His demurrer on the ground that the liquor was introduced for his personal use was overruled. At the trial he sought to prove that the liquor was brought in for that purpose, but proof was de- nied. That was held to be error and the case was reversed and remanded for new trial
 After quoting section l of the prohi- bition amendment, the court finds that three crimes are defined and de- nounced: The traffic in intoxicating ing liquors, and introducing or attempt ing to introduce intoxicating liquors. The opinion then deals with the con- tentfon of the appellant at his trial . that the provision of the constitution against the introduction of liquor is unconstitutional as an attempt to regu- late interstate commerce. The various laws relating to liquor in interstate commerce were then cited, with de- cisions bearing upon them up to the Webb Kenyon law, "an act divesting intoxicating liquors of their interstate character in certain cases" That act forbids the taking of liquor into any state, ito be received, possessed solo , or in any manner used either in thu original package or otherwise in vio- lation of any law of such state"
 A quotation is made from Justice 1 Days opinion in the case of the Adam. 1 Express company vs. Kentucky, show. ing to what extent congress has ex. tended prohibition of the act with ref erence to interstate shipments and 1; quotation is also made from tn, courts own decision in the Ghern; case last spring, upholding the righ of the state to enact such legislation as had been enacted in the prohibition amendment.
 The opinion continues:
 Tt being settled that traffic in in ltoXicating liquor in this state is crime, 1t follows that the shipment | transportation or introduction of in toXicating liquor into the state witt the intention to sell, barter, exchange give away, or dispose of, divests, unde the Webb-k Kenyon act, such intoxicat ing liquor of it's interstate commerc character and leaves the state free il
 the exercise of it's police powers to de nounce such introduction as a crim and to prescribe penalties for it's com mission. In other words, one who in
 troduces intoxicating liquor into tn
 state with the purpose and intention 0 Violating the laws of the state by dis posing of the same may not now inter
 pose the defense that he is engaged i
 interstate commerce, for the reaso
 that the article that he is handlin
 has been invested of it's interstat
 character by the Webb Kenyon ac
 Intoxicating liquor in the aspect of be
 ing received, possessed, or kept, or i
 some way used in manner prohibite
 by the laws of the state to which it
 to be, or is in fact imported" is a
 outlaw and divested of it's interstat
 character and withdrawn from inter
 state protection at the hands of tn
 federal government"
 Coming to the chief issue in tn
 case, the court says:
 The appellant sought to show, b
 evidence, that the liquor with which h
 was charged with introducing into tn
 state was for his personal use. upo
 the theory that the prohibition amend
 ment to the constitution does not de
 nounce or define personal use of in
 toXicating liquors as crime He con
 tends that it is not unlawful in thi
 state to have in possession or to drin
 intoxicating liquors; that the Webb
 Kenyon act does not divest or attemp
 to divest intoxicating liquors of thei ., interstate character when shipped
 transported or introduced into tn
 state from without the state to b possessed or used for a lawful Dur lpose.
 I Search the prohibition amendmer
 as you will, there is no suggestion 0
 intimation in any form containe
 therein, prohibiting the possession c
 individual consumption of intoxicatin liquors in Arizona. Indeed, it was freel admitted upon the argument by coun
 sel who appeared as amici curio ths 1t is not crime to possess or drin
 intoxicating liquors in Arizona, an
 while the attorney general, at least i
 his brief. insists that the use or pos
 session is crime, he fails to cite us { Ia single instance where a prosecutio