The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1916-02-01
and extract from it the following:


forbidden by appropriate legislation under the police power
as was expressly ruled in Ngler Kansas SUPRA not be
logically oundy asserted that the receipt possession OF
more than specified quantity may not be forbidden
bv statute: especially when the sale other disposition OF
noxcans forbidden in the States effort to promote tenn
perance and suppress the evils of nteperance by visiting
its power upon of the usually productive Of ne
perance viz the traffic therein Or has been before quoted
from Mar and Carl cases ane) remedy the evil pres
ent the of intoxicating liquors beverage The
power confirmed Mugler Kansas must necessarily
prehend the lesser manifestation of like power by regulating
the quantity be received possessed time dry
territory in the State Furthermore would appear be
but the assertion of selfevdent truth to say that since
may be vaidy forbidden sell his intoxicating liquors
another that other may be vady forbidden to buy the article
from him; and if may be validity forbidden to SELL and
necessarily vady forbidden to der the article, to another
that other may be vady forbidden accept delivery AS to
the seller the prohibitions stated would operate upon him and
upon his property but the with the effect OF
infringing any constitutional right immunity. Dorans
case supa) Whereas the latter the buyer the proh
biton would operate anticipation qualifying his rgln
the interest of the public welfare determined by the auho
ty the lawmakers, with (which the decision in such crcu
stances res-o acquire property interest in the article above
Ia defined quantity at one time"
The Supreme Court of Alabama also considered the statute
las means to enforcement of the Prohibition law against
the sale of liquors After citing with approval the of
Patsoue o. Pen 232 u S. 1885, and Ss Heserberg, I'll
u S. 3d. and La7von Steele I52 y. S. 1885, in which pos
session of certain personal property held be vady
hbited as the accomplishment of uteror valid
purpose.
Mcclellan Justice speaking for the Court proceeded fur
ther to say
In Delanater a. South Dakota zo5 u S. o3-recenty fol-
lowed and applied by this Court in State DeG7u in Manu-
~ cofa1or
enactment fobddng the solicitation of orders for oxcants
by nonresident of the State This Court had already in
Moog u State 145 Aa IS sustained such law applied
to residents of the State The remedy for admitted evil
viz the of inoxcans beverage found to fairly
include the of soliciting orders The nsistence srng
illustrates the authorized progress manifested by and tor the
exercise of the police power by the State and the recognition
by the Courts of the fact that all commands prohibitions
ancary and reasonably related the States purpose pro-
mote temperance and to suppress the eas of ntemperanee
whether through the prohibition of the traffic the chief
that end not not be thwarted or annued on
any idea that constitutional rights thereby violated
invaded
This case also interesting in that the Court declared that
the case of Ridge City of Bessee 164 Ala $50 Zone of the
cases relied upon by appellants counsel in his brief the
former hearng) was not an authority against the validity
of the Alabama statute and the Court gave the why
said case was not governing authority, Of the
being that the involved the ordinance of municipality
and Of the State the ordinance going beyond and
in advance of any Safe statute then of force.
The Supreme Court of Alabama also disapproved of the
jorty view in State Williams, 146 N c. 68 the decision
being in the opinion of the Court unsound
The Court also declared its decision in Williams q State
5o Ala, to be opposed to the doctrine of West Virginia
Gilman, 80 W. Va. 146.
The State of Georgia has also enacted statute identical
o,,1
sion of liquors. the Georgia law will become effective May
Ist 1916.
NORTH CAROLINA.
In March, 1915, the General Assembly of North Carolina
enacted statute Section of which made it unlawful for