Arizona republican., 1916-02-13
MAY1SHIP LIQUOR INTO ARIZONA FOR PERSONAL
 USE SAYS HIGH COURT

has been begun in any county of the state against any person for drinking intoxicating liquors or having it in his possession.
 The records of the courts throughout the state evidence many prosecutions for the sale of intoxicating liquors since the prohibition amendment went into effect It is common knowledge that personal use has been more or less prevalent throughout the state and the effort has been, not tC punish the user, but the seller thereof. The bootlegger and not his patrons have had the at tention of the prosecuting officers of the state.
 We think it is the consensus of opinion, not only of the legal profess sion, but of the general public, that it IS not crime to possess or drink in toxicating liquors in this state This universal and, no doubt, correct con- struction of the prohibition amendment may easily account forthe lack of ef- fort upon the part of the prosecuting officers of the state to punish for the mere drinking or possession of intoxi- eating liquors. So far as the enforce ment of the prohibitory law is con- cefned, that this has been the general usage and practical construction of the law by the officers of this state may i not be gainsaid and is so admitted by the attorney general If it had been made crime to use and possess intoxi- eating liquors in this state, it's ,intro- auction for that purpose would relieve II or Its interstate character, so that it's announcement as crime would fall within the police power of the state , Like sale and barter, then use and possession would be in violation of the | laws of the state"
 In the case of the Adams Express | ompany vs. Kentucky, the court of ap- l peals of that state held that there had | been no violation of the Webb Ken yon law by the introduction of liquor TOT personal use into dry" territory. l That view was sustained by the Unified States supreme court in this lan- guage:
 Tt therefore follows that, inasmuch as the facts of this case show that the
 liquor was not to be used in violation Of the laws of the state of Kentucky as such laws are construed by the high est court of that state, the Webb Ken yon law has no application and no ef rect to change the general rule that the states may not regulate commerce wholly interstate" | Concerning this utterance. the onin- ion continues:
 1 Tn so far as the decision in As3ar,s
 Express company vs. Kentuckv -ba : ihriuenced our determination, we wish It 10 be understood that it was not the announcement of the law of the
 hlgnest court of Kentucky, but of the
 supreme court of the United States to
 which we have given most credence
 upon the stipulation in that case tbt ilquor was shipped into Kentuckv fo,
 the personal use of the consignees and
 such use not being a crime under th.
 iaws or kentucky, neither that cour,
 nor the supreme court of the JTnitef
 states could have reached A differen
 conclusion. It was upon the ascer. talned fact that the liquor imported int,
 hentucky was to be put to a use rec.
 oshi@eo as lawful that the prohibition
 ol the Webb Kenyon act did not appl, >'N 'iio ucCloiOH Dy the Kentucky co,r. IS Tn accord with and influenced h,
 repeated adjudications on the sub;ac,
 by the federal court"
 The constitutionality of the Wehb
 kenyon act is not discussed. as ina,
 matter had not been raised in the court
 below. oooi
 After passing upon other phases o,
 the trlal in the lower court. the s,,.
 Preme court adds the following. ratbe,
 TOT the guidance of those who ma,
 hasten to avail themselves of the privi. 1iege Of bringing liquor in for person.
 use: pets'iia from what has been said if rnus
 not be understood that the mere cIain
 that intoxicating liquor has bee
 brought in by one for his personal ms
 renders such a person immune iron
 prosecution. Any one bringing intoxi
 eating liquor into Arizona from outsid
 the limits of the state does so at hi
 peril. Whether he subjects himself t, | UConfip,1od o,, Do eer