The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1916-02-04

case of Erboye Wson SUPRA if another opportunity be af
forded to more fully consider the questions involved
THE wEBB-KENYoN EXCLUDE ITS oPER-
ALTON SHIPMENTS OF LIQUOR PERSONAL USE IF THE
LIQUOR IS INTENDED RECEIVED POSSESSED SOLD, OR
IN ANY MANNER USED CONTRARY TO THE LAWS OF THE
STATE INTO WHICH THE LIQUOR IS SOUGHT BE
INTRODUCED.
The statement above plainly follows from examination
of the terms the Webb Kenyon Act ITSELF construed ref
erence to the evil which the Act intended relieve The
history of the Act shows this to be true.
As Senator Knox said in his report the Senate in refer
ence to legislation concerning interstate in liquors:
Congressional expression favor of personal would
be an expression upon subject with which Congress has
nothing to do and upon all of confusing questions
would arise"
AS the Honorable A. Y Webb, member of Congress from
North Carolina said in the House of Representatives Feb
ruary 8h 1913 in the debate upon theWebbKenyon Act:
IF the States have the right the first place. to prohibit
the personal receipt of liquor this Congress has no power
to take that right away from the States On the other hand if
the State has no power under its constitution the Con
stituon of the United States to deprive of the right Of
the personal of liquor then this law is harmless to such
right because the State take that right from
Page 28o7, Vol 49, Congressional Record
Furthermore the record shows that Mr. Backmon of Ala
bara offered amendment making the Act nappicable to
shipments for personal us and the amendment defeated
by the following vote: Yeas S. Noes 149. (p. 1857
Mr. Bartlett Of Georgia proposed the following amendment;
ProIded hoe0e7 that nothing in this Act shall be held
render illegal subject to State control the
interstate shipment of liquors herein Defined any State or
Territory or District to any for his personal family
use.
This was defeated by the following VOTE Yeas 65 Noes
I167-(Pages 286667)
Thereupon the House voted down the amendment proposed
by Mr.. Davis of West Virginia, as follows
But nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to
forbid the shipment transportation of any ptuous vnous
matted fermened or other intoxicating liquor of any kind in
tended for purposes for the personal use or con-
sumption of the owner consignee thereof"
Thereupon the bill passed the House Yeas 239, Noes o.
(p. 1857
This record should all doubt to the purpose and
intent Of Congress in enacng the WebbKenyon Law, in
deed any possible doubt could arise Congress intended that
the prohibition Of the Act should exclude from the State liquors
for personal use if any State wled and manifested its
wishes in valid statute falling within the terms of the Act
We will not extend this brief by any detailed analysis OF
several cited by and relied upon by appellants counsel
Palmer u Express Co. (Tenn,), 165 S. W. 236.
Vou Wiukle o. Dela7vure, 81 Atl 385.
Exbayte Peede (Tex.), 40 S. w 749
Southern Express Co., q. State (Ala), GO so. Rep I15
I88 Ala454
Southern e. C0 T. CIy OF f7TSH T0"t (1N. ~, o3 D. T.
254.
Bristol Dist Co. a. So En-. Co. (Court Of Appeals of Vr
gnia decided January H. 19I5)
In those cases the shipments which for personal use
were held not to be within the of the WebbKenyon Act
for the simple reason that there existing State law in
the several States at that time which would be violated by
such character of shipments.
In Palmer o. Express Co. & 1ann 165 S. w. 236, there
was no limitation by the statute under consideration upon the
number of shipments that might be obtained by citizen al
though single shipments forbidden in excess of one gal
on and the Court held that the regulation the size of
shipment simply of interstate commerce although the
Mississippi Court sustained similar statute in american En-
press Co. .. Beer (Mss), So So Rep 575 The difference
between the Mississippi and Tennessee Courts if of con-
sequence here the two West Virginia statutes of 1915 are
framed on entirely different lines.
Furthermore in Palmer Express Co. (Tenn), 165 S. w
236 the validity of the WebbKenyon Act assumed but
held nappcabe because the shipment for personal
and there 40us State 1a against 1eeei0g sach shipment
What the Tennessee Court would have held had the legislation