Mohave County miner., 1916-10-28

| ne was SpSCldl COuHSSA 4OA 'AAS SSS'NN of Alabama in the railroad rate cases, which have been carried through the supreme court of the United States, and has been active in opposing the liuuor traffic wherever the question has been presented, and especially in his own state. He is the author of all prohibition laws enacted in Alabama since the year of 1907.
 It is safe to say that he is the fore most jurist and lawyer in the state of Alabama. For this reason the expres- sion of his views in the letter which follows should be authoritative and carry conviction to all fair-minded people whose partizanship does not prompt them to set their personal opinion above the law.
 The letter, in full, is as follows:
 Birmingham, Ala,
 Oct. 2, 1916.
 Dear Sir-I understand that a pro 
 hibition campaign is on in Arizona for the adoption of the proposed Prohibi- tion amendment to meet the decision of the supreme court of that state in the Sturgeon case, and of course l will be greatly pleased to see the amend ment succeed, as have been fighting for prohibition in Alabama since 1907, and have drafted all the prohibition laws enacted by this state from 1907 to the present time. l briefed and argued the Whittle case before our supreme court, involving the receipt and possession clause of our anti shipping bill, and secured decision from the supreme court of Alabama sustaining that law.
 have read the decision of the su- preme court of Arizona in the Sur geon case and it is quite evident from the opinion of the court that had there been in Arizona law against the re- ceipt and possession of liquor as there is in Alabama, it would have been sus- tained by the court. In that opinion the supreme court goes as far toward restraining and restricting liquor shipments for personal use as any su- preme court in the country. The court expressly approved the Idaho de- cision in ex parte Crane, and the prin- ciple laid down in the Sturgeon case would support and fit with the Webb Kenyon law. After reading the opin- ion of the supreme court in the Sur geon case, I am satisfied that the case was correctly decided upon the ground that the amendment did not fall with in the term of the Webb-Kenyon law. But I am furthermore of the opinion that the court laid down principles that should be entirely satisfactory to prohibitionists and that should render it easy to meet the difficulty either by adopting the proposed amendment or by having a statute directed against receipt and possession of liquor, since such a statute would put into opera tion the Webb-Kenyon law. This prin- ciple has been precisely so decided by the supreme court of Alabama and the supreme court of North Carolina, and very recently by a majority, or four out of five judges, of the South Caro- lina supreme court. The opinion in the Sturgeon case was very carefully prepared and is well supported by the authorities which it cites, and I am satisfied that no just ground of com plaint can be made against the court, or any member thereof, by prohibi- tionists, on account of that decision.
 With personal regards and best wishes, l have the honor to remain, very truly yours,.
 SAMUEL D. WEAKLEY,
 Former Chief Justice of Alabama. Very respectfully submitted,
 GEORGE J. STONEMAN, Chairman Democratic State Central
 Committee.
 T. T. POWERS,
 Secretary Democratic State Central
 Committee.
 Editor c. W. Boris of the Oatman