The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1916-01-28

community to disregard the legislative determination of thai
question.
Now if the end and object of this legislation prevent
the consumption OF Intoxicating liquors beverage or to
restrict the consumption thereof and the evil to be reeded
the use of Intoxicating liquors beverage ard this end
and purpose be proper why NAV not the Legislature
if in its Judgment it is proper and necessary to proceed
directly declare shall be unlawful for citizen to acquire
property in or to own or possess intoxicating liquors Must
State act by indirecon May not State accomplish directly
what it is right to accomplish nrecty Why make an eNcep-
ton in such case the general rule that what may be &C
comDished indirectly, NAV be accomplished directly.
It results from the authorities above cited that the Federal
Constitution contains guaranty to citizen OF State or OF
the United States that he must somewhere be able to obtain
Intoxicating liquor for personal far the tourteenth
Amendment is concerned has he any such right under
the Commerce clause since the WebbKenyon Act if valid
State law would be inrnged by the receipt possession OF
liQuor for personal use.
l.xrExr OF POLICE POWER RESPECTING PERSONAL USE OF
Liquors. FURTHER CONSIDERED:
II State has the right to prohibit the manufacture of
Intoxicating 1iqtor By citizen for his every other
State in the Mon has or NAV have the same right Hence,
if all the States would pass laws prohibiting the manufacture
BY citizen of Intoxicating liquors for his and pro-
hb the sale OF such liquors within its borders to citizen
for his own use what would become OF the supposed right OF
citizen to secure liquor for his use Or, what would
become OF such right if Congress should exercise its we'll
settled power to exclude all Intoxicating liquors from inter
state shipment? Or what would become Of his right If the
Federal Government should prohibit the Importation OF in
oxcating liquors into this country after all the States had
prohibited its manufactured
II citizen of State has the right to obtain intoxicating
liquors for his any quantity in unlimited guam
titles it would seem to follow he should least have the right
to manufacture such liquor for his from the products
4 ,oo441oJ / oot,o Lc,1cLr
Is the supposed constitutional right of citizen to have
liquor be dependent upon the OF legislation in another
State or the state of legislation by Congress?
Are the laws of State prohibiting the manufacture OF IN
toxcating liquors by citizen for his and the sale OF
such liquors State for the of the purchaser constu-
tonal and valid only long is left open for the
securing by the citizen of Intoxicating liquors elsewhere, either
in the United States some foreign country
If person has constitutional right purchase intoxi
eating liquors for his personal the seller would seem to
have the constitutional right sell it for such purchasers
personal use and vet is settled that has constu
tiona right sell Intoxicating liquors Such right not one
of citizen OF State or of citizen of the United States
The person who sells liquor purchaser may sell for
the purchasers and yet the State has the power to
deprive the latter the right purchase by prohibiting any
one to sell liquor to him. 1t would seem, therefore, clear
that citizen may manufacture liquor for his personal
use then he has not the constitutional right to purchase
receive such liquors for his especially when such
purchase or receiving is violation of the law by the person
selling Or delivering such liquor
Furthermore the Court in Mugler Kansas sustained
provision broad enough prohibit the manufacture of liquor
for personal since contrary ruling might have defeated
the entire scheme of prohibition embodied in the laws of
Kansas The meaning that if such privilege recog
zed the consumption of liquors would be but little restricted
since large stocks would be manufactured under the pretene
of the need of them for personal and then could be made
an instrument of defeating the law against sale.
To accomplish the admittedly valid main purpose of pro-
bing the traffic in liquors. it necessary for State under
its police power have the right to control interstate ship
ents even for personal use This is step which has fair
relation the end to be accomplished What the difference
in principle between the denial of the right to manufacture
and denial of the right to import?
This line of reasoning adopted by District Judge Bean
orrner Chief Justice of Oregon, in u S. o. Oyegon-Was
Rail 6 Ma. Co., 2Io Fed Rep.
The same principle laid down by the Supreme Court of
Alabama in Southern Express Co. Whttle 60 So Rep 652
and approved and reaed by the Supreme Court of North