Bisbee daily review., 1916-02-16
CAN'T CURTAIL THE SHIPMENT OF BOOZE
 FOR PERSONAL USE
Douglas Attorney Declares it as His Opinion that State Can Not Pass Laws Doing Away with that Privilege.

DOUGLAS, Feb. 15.-In the opinion
 of Attorney S. F. French of this city,
 it will be impossible for the people of 1 this state to vote for any law or amendment to the constitution which
 will prohibit the importation of liquor
 into this state for personal use. He contends that any enactment of this
 kind would be unconstitutional and
 would be declared illegal if brought to the supreme court of the United
 States.
 French was the first attorney in this
 part of Arizona to make a fight on
 the personal use phase of the state law in connection with the defense of an alleged bootlegger. In the Aaron case, he argued before the superior court that the information was de-
 fective in that it did not allege for ' what purpose the liquor was brought 1 into the state and did mot show it was not imported for personal use. In the brief which he has sent to the state supreme court and which has attracted considerable attention from lawyers, he says:
 "The information is bad for the req
 son that it does not allege the pur- pose for which the appellant intro duced the intoxicating liquor therein specified into the state of Arizona, and does not allege that the liquor therein specified was introduced into the state of Arizona for any of the purposes specified in the prohibition amendment of the constitution of the state of Arizona, prohibiting the in troduction into, manufacture of and the giving, exchanging, bartering, sell ing or disposing or ardent spirits, ale, beer, wine or intoxicating liquors. The prohibition amendment does not pro- hibit. and does not attempt to inter- fere, with the right of the citizen to use any of the intoxicating liquors specified in the said amendment, and we insist if the amendment prohibited the use of liquor by a citizen. or his possession of the same, for his own use, so long as he did not commit any offense against public decency and morals, the amendment to that extent would be repugnant to the constitu' tion of the United States, and the Webb-Kenyon act of Congress would not take such provision out of the pro lection of the interstate commerce laws. For as was we'll said in Adams Express company vs. the common wealth 157 s. w. page sos, in the opinion in the case The bill of rights, which declares. that among the in alienable rights possessed by the cit izen is, that of seeking and pursuing their safety and happiness, and thai the absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and prosperity of free men exist nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority, would be an empty sound. if the legislature could prohibit the citizen the right of owning and drinking Iiouor. when in so doing he did rot offend the laws of decency by beins intoxicated in public. Therefore the question of what man will drink. or eat, or own, provided the rights or others are not invaded. is one which addresses itself alone to the will of the citizen. It is not within the con- potency of government to invade the privacy of citizens life and to regu- ! late his conduct in matters in which he alone is concerned, or to prohibit him any liberty, the exercise of which will not directly injure society,"
 AS matter of fact, the introduc- tion of intoxicating liquors into the state of Arizona, except for the pur- poses specified in said prohibition amendment, was never intended to be prohibited by said amendment"