Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1916-05-22
QUART LIMITATION
HELD WORTHLESS
Professor Rogers Points to Pos
sible Defect in Shipping Fea-
turc of Mapp Bill.
SAYS IT is INCONSISTENT
Holds That Measure Allows Pos
session of Larger Amounts if
Intended for Personal Use.


The celebrated one quart Limitation
OF the Mapp prohibition law IS held to
bc without force or effect by Lindsay
Rogers, who contributes 20 the April
number OF the Virginia Law Review
an exhaustive analysis OF this feature
or the act passed by tho last General
Assembly, under the title The Vir-
inerco Clause Of the Federal Cnnstitu-
,!on.
The article. which is given leading
position in this staid journal OF legal
lore. reviews the principal court de-
c!slons dealing with the Wcbb- Kenyon
law and the various state an,iship-
ping laws which draw their effective
ness from this Federal statute.
Mi Rogers is adjunc; professor OF
political economy a; The University OF
Virginia and wcll-known AZ !, writer
legal and economic subjects. He
succeeded Professor ". NJ. Hun!ey.
who resigned from the faculty 10 go
10 tho Virginia Military institute Ho
i graduat" OF JONAS Hopkins Uni
yersi,y and mas been :, member Of the
faculty OF the University OF Virginia
for abou: T. year.
Tn, prominent position given Mr.
Roscrss article BY the Virginia Law
Review, Il il pcintcd out. supports the
assumption that the editors OF the
publication are seriously impressed by
his conclusions The brief has been
local Ia wycrs several OF whom express
cI the belief last night th.; ;he find
ing. Of Mr.. Rogers stand :, fair chance
or being sustained hy the court.
nINE>TED OF INTERSTATE
CHARACTER ~ SOME CASES
Unicr the Webb Kenyon Lag. in.o%i
cn,in. liquors are diNestcd ot their in
t.rsta,c character in certain cases. II
urohihits the shipment or transporta-
ti.n OF Intoxicating liquor from one
STATE into another State when euch
liquor is intended, by any person in
teresttd therein. 10 be received. pos-
s..sei. sold, or in any manner used.
either In tho original package or other
visr IN violation o. the law OF such
state
Til. dctec, .! the shipping feature OF
'n' Napp pl.I. stl IspGclS
in rs attempt 10 keep out OF the State
al shipments OF more than specified
amounts. irrespective Of whether their
proposed disposition after the con-
signee receives them Is permitted hy
state law. The Mapp bin limits the
amount or liquor that may be delivered
BY a common carrier to any one person
In the State. 20 one quart of distilled
liauor. or three gallons OF beer. or one
gallon Of wine, Such deliveries can
not be made of,ener than once a month
Ia the case OF any one person.
Sow while these arbit-ar? amounts
nrc fixed as the maximum quantities
that may be legally delivered OF re-
c.!ycd Mr.. Rogers points out. the MapP
hill legalizes the possession OF much
larger amounts II intended purely for
pc5sonal use. Thus, the law provides
that not Unit! the possession IT ones
home Of more than one gallon of liquor,
one gallon OF wine or three gallons OF
beer ~ shown shall such possession be
nrinl facie evidence that the liquors
are kept for sale.
Mr. Rogers quotes decision o: the
Delaware Supreme Cour; in which Il
holds shat the Haze! law Of that state.
which attempts 10 do practically what
is undertaken b. the shipping provision
Of Tie Mapp act. is imperative so far
as applied to Interstate shipment for
valid purposes.
NAY BE COMPELLED
TO DELIVER SHIPMENTS
1T seems TO me clear Mr. Rogers
concludes, that when shipments are
not brought in for purposes which are
made unlawful by the Virginia law tand
could have been made unlawful be-
fore the passage of the Webb Kenyon
,ct) the carrier, not only cannot no
prevented from delivering, but, on the
contrary may by mandamus, he com
pelled, 10 deliver such shipments.
ITO conclude. then. IL would seem
"a ne abundantly established by rea-
son and precedent that residents OF
Virginia desiring intoxicating liquors
for their own use after November !,
1915, will not be prevented from re-
ccivine them; nor will residents be
limited as to the amounts of ardent
spirits IL the consignments are for pos
.ession ut the home, or other lawful
mace. and for personal use
"lf Il common carrier refuses.
through fear of violating the Virginia
law. to transport the shipments, the
courts would he justified in granting
a riandamus compelling the delivery,
even though the consgnee had within
The month received the amount which
the net unsucessfuliy attempts to fix
as the limit. IT would seem, further
more, that this right to import liquors
fo. personal use may be insisted upon
by the consignee. subject only to tho
danger that If an individual possesses
at his home more than one gallon OF
distilled liquor. one gallon OF vino or
three gallons Of beer, it would be
prima facie evidence that the liquors
arc kept for sale, and he may have to
stand trial and rebut this presumption
"a proceeding, however, which, in
many cases Will not he diticult.''
Mr.. Rogers adds a foot note. in which
he confesses TO heing puzzled by the
provisions In the Mapp bill limiting
Continued on Second Page.)