The Cordova daily times., 1916-12-27
VALIDITY OF. DRY
 LAW BEING TESTED

att UT MafCh l, 1915, ana west Nir ginia's prohibition laws were brought before the supreme court in two test cases of the James Clark Dis tilling Co.,, of Cumberland Mir, against the American Express Company and Western Maryland Railroad. Whether prohibition states, under the Webb Kenyon law or otherwise, may prohibit shipment of intoxicating liquors, in interstate commerce, for personal use of citizens in dry territory was the principal question raised.
 In the two West Virginia cases the liquor interests asserted that it was not necessary for the supreme court to determine constitutionality of the Webb-Kenyon law unless the court should uphold the West Virginia stat. ute prohibiting West Virgiinans from receiving or possessing" liquor SC, cured in interstate commerce by trans. portation over common carriers.
 An incidental question raised was whether prohibition states which per. init their citizens to have and use' liquor may prohibit interstate carriers from transporting liquor to such citi- Zens for their individual use and not for sale.
 Effectual enforcement of "dry" leg islation in prohibition states was said by prohibition advocates to depend largely upon validity of the Webb Kenyon act, designated to give "dry" states the right to prevent liquor ship ments from wet" states. Counsel for the liquor interests contended that the WebbKenyon act is void if it dele gates to states the federal right to regulate interstate commerce. They also contend that. as West Virginia 8 prohibition laws permit citizens to have and use liquor, although prohibit ing it's manufacture or sale, an amend ment of 1915 prohibiting citizens from receiving or possessing" liquor by common carriers in interstate com
 
 The Webb-Kenyon law was entitled ''an act divesting intoxicating liquors of their interstate character in certain cases" 1t was named for its CO., authors, Rep. Webb of North Carilona and Senator Kenyon of Iowa. The act was passed over President Tafts veto hnH -Ir eating liquors from one state to an- other, (which intoxicating liquor is intended by any person interested therein, to be received, possessed, sold or in any manner used - in violation Of any law of such state - is hereby prohibited"
 The especial clause of West Vir- ginia's prohibition law attacked as void makes f unlawful for any person In that staCe "to receive directly or indirectly, intoxicating liquors from a common or other carrier" The law also was made applicable to liquors intended for personal use or otherwise
 
 shipments" Another clause, however. permits persons to personally carry into the state liquor, not exceeding a half gallon, for personal use and when plainly labelled. Before the supreme court. the liquor interests argued that this latter clause gave the right to -1 nd haN fore, the law banning interstate ship ment was void as a state regulation of interstate commerce, not affected by the Webb-Kenyon law.
 These and other incidental questions were presented in appeal of the James Clark Distilling Company, from de- cree of Federal Judge Rose of Mary land, dismissing injunction suits against the American Express Com. pany and Western Maryland railroad in which the distiller sought to re quire the carriers to accept liquor for shipment into West Virginia for per. sonal use of consignees whose orders we're tSISikCu ny pCIhAOAAp Oi NhC West Virginia law also made liquor order solicitations by mail illegal and made the place of delivery of liquor the "plaee of sale;" these sections were also attacked as invalid before supreme court
 The Webb-Kenyon law was before the supreme court once before, in g Kentucky liquor case, but the court did not then determine its validity holding merely that as Kentucky's con .stitution did not permit prohibition Of '.personai use" Of liquor. the Webb Kenyon act was not applicable there Constitutionality of the Webb-KenyoI law was questioned even before iti passage. President Taft and Attornel General Wickersham held it an uncon stitutional delegation of federal powe to the state to interfere with inter state commerce. Congress prompt. passed it over the veto, in February 1913.
 Later as attorney general, the pres ent Supreme Court Justice Mickey