The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1916-02-04
WEST VIRGINIA.

Counsel for appellant in their reply brief upon the former
hearing contended that under constitutional government as it
exists the United States the regulation of the personal habits
of the adult citizen under disability function OF
government and that certain regulations proposed by the West
Virginia amendatory statute approved February 1915
in violation of the fundamental law set forth in both State
and Federal Constitutions they will doubt make the
contention against the statute of May 24th, 1915.
Among other cases. some OF which we have already noticed
they State Gilman 80 w. Va 49, and contended that
the decision of the highest Court of West Virginia in said
prescribed rule of construction for the Constitution of that
State which should be adopted here.
The Gilman case was decided under provision of the Con-
stitution of 1912 in the following words Laws shall be
passed. regulating prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors
within the limits of this State Without concedng that the
decision construction of that provision OF the
Constitution it must be said that the Amendment effect
i've July Ist 1914 entirely changed the constitutional situation
in West Virginia respect to the subject matter in hand
In State a. Sixo 1885, decided by the Supreme Court of
Appeals of West Virginia November goth, 1915 (no yet
ported the Court took occasion refer this change and to
say of the case of State o. Gilman that is authority for the
proposition that statute of the kind involved unconstu
tional and void der the Constitution then IN force; and
further used the following language:
"ce the case of State a. Gilman 7cus decided the Cons
tuition of the State has been amended The Constitution
amended prohibits the manufacture and keeping for sale of
malt and splrluouS liquors. etc. and requires the Leg
ature to enact such laav 7v regulations, conditions
rites and penalties may be necessary carry into effect
the precision of this secton This amendment became effect
e July l. 1914 is the duty of the Legislature to enact
such laws may be necessary effective this provision
of the Constitution as amended The legislature responsive
to this provision of the Constitution has deemed wise to
require liquors brought into the State carried from one
place to another within the State quantities of oneaf gal
lon or more to be marked labeled Whether not this
is 7Uise policy for the Courts to determine # the
legislature has exceeded its bOzeer the Courts not
interfere The Courts may decide auether not the Legis
atwe had the bo7er establish these regulations, but they
can prescribe the policy If 7Vtn the Legislature limits this
yomd be to subordinate the 7VH of the Legislature to the
opinion of the Courts"
The Court then cited the of Purity Extract 6 Tonic
Co. Lylc 226 u S. 1872, holding that State in dealing
with recognized evil which is free suppress, might adopt
measures having reasonable relation to that end although the
inhibited transaction separately considered might be innocuous
The Court therefore much broader view of the present
Constitution of West Virginia than taken by the Court
in the Gilman OF the Constitution Of 1912.
Furthermore in State Dal 1854 decided by the West
Virginia Court November 3oh 1851 was held that pro-
vision against advertising liquors. under the Yost Act was
valid under the amended Constitution of West Virginia and
that Section of the Yost Act of 1913 did not violate the
privileges or munities clause of the Fourteenth Amend
rnent to the United States Constitution.
It must be evident therefore, that the Gilman no