Arizona republican., 1916-02-22
NJ PERSONAL
 USE DECISION
Attorney General Jones Says It Is Up to Express Companies to Interpret Law and Court Decision for Employes

A conference by appointment was held in the office of Attorney General Wiley F. Jones in his offices yester- day attended by R. A. Cox, Fl Paso Supci iimtendent of tbe Wells Fargo Express Company. also J M Will Hams, local agent of the Wells Fargo Company and the Superintendent of ,he Wells-Fareo Company at Los An geles, regarding the recent decision of the State Supreme Court in the per sonal use" case. Mir Jones had also a lengthy telegram from Alfred Sut- TO, General Attorney of the Express Company at san Francisco, making inquiry upon the subject.
 The Attorney General gave his views fully to the representatives of the Express Company and sent a night letter to Mir SutrO by wire in response to Lis inquiry. Mr. Jones states that it is for the transportation companies to interpret the law for their employees and agents and not for his office to do so.
 He also states that his office has ad nothing to do with the action of the transportation companies regard ing shipments of liquor. If orders for liduor have been delayed that it is up to the companies and not to his office. and if any matters come up for solution or prosecution, it will be dealt with by the County Attorneys and the Superior Courts.
 Attorney General Jones issued the following statement yesterday on the personal use question:
 "I have given out no official opin- ion. nor have I given any official ad- vice whatever to any county attorney upon the subject of the supreme court decision in regard to personal use The brief interview publihsed recent lv was quite brief indeed. and was only upon the point that the case de- cided did not involve a sale of liquor neither did it involve carrier bring ing liauor into the state.
 The opinion of the supreme court decided that there may be legal in- troductiOn into the state for lawful rurpose, and that the defendant had made such an introduction of the wine in question into the state. Now the question which is before the legal advisers of the express and rallroao companies is the matter of the liabll- itv or risk assumed by the carrier il the consignee ships the liquor in fol an unlawful use That is a matter for the lawyers of the common car riers to pass upon, and not for this office
 q state this so that it may be un- derstood what was in my mind Whei I gave the brief interview that l did having been informed that from ont to four. hundred orders for liquor ha( gone ont of this city alone. The courts decision is written in plal' language, and ought to be easily un derstood but perhaps many of the public, without reading it, have imme diatelv jumped to the conclusion tha the Introduction clause of the pro hibition amendment is absolutely an rulled, entirely overlooking this Ian puage of the decision:
 "'The prohibition amendment, in s' far as it attempts to interdict it shipment, transportation or lh'iouuN .ion into the state for lawful pur rose. is intellectual as an attempt t regulate interstate commerce.
 "Tt must not be understood tha 1he mere claim that intoxicating liquo has been drought in by one for hi personal use renders such a persol immune from prosecution, Anyon bringing intoxicating liquor into ATT zone from outside the limits Of Tn state does so at his own peril.
 Continuing Mir. Jones said:
 "The common carriers are now in vestigating the question as to thei own risk and liability in case wher the consignee ships it for an u1lawft purpose.
 'In the Trcutner case it was hel that the party trafficking in liquor does so at his own risk, and if 1t intoxicating or goes beyond the per centage in alcohol he is guilty unde the law"