The copper era and Morenci leader., 1916-02-18
MAY SHIP LIQUOR INTO ARIZONA FOR
 PERSONAL USE
Holds Mo Crime to Drink or Possess Liquor, Therefore Unconstitutional to Prohibit Introduction for Person- al Use.

That one may bring liquor into the state of Arizona for personal use was held by the supreme court last Sat urday ill an opinion reversing the court below in the case of w. J. Sturgeon, appellant against the state respondent, from Yuma county. The defendant had been tried for intro ducing 2 bottle of wine across the line at Yuma His demurrer on the ground that the liquor was introduced for his personal use was overruled. At the trial he sought to prove that the liquor was brought in for that pur- pose, but proof was denied. That was held to be error and the case was reversed and remanded for a new trial.
 After quoting section 1 of the prohi- bition amendment, the court finds that three crimes defined and de- nounced The traffic in intoxicating liquors, the manufacture of intoXicat- ing liquors, and introducing or attempt ing to introduce intoxicating liquors.
 The opinion then deals with the contention of the appellant at his trial that the r-o-i-ion of the constitution against the introduction of liquor is unconstitutional as an attempt to regu- late interstate commerce. The various laws relating to liquor in interstate commerce were then cited, with de cisions bearing upon them up to the Webb-Kenyon law, 'an act divesting intoxicating liquors of their interstate character in certain cases" That act forbids the taking of liquor into any state, ito be received, possessed, sold or in any manner used either in the original package or otherwise, in vio- 1f T0r r,f I0h e A quotation is made from Justice Days opinion in the case of the Adams Express company vs. Kentucky, show ing to what extent congress has ex- tended prohibition of the act with ref erence to interstate shipments and quotation is also made from the counts own decision in the Gherna case last spring. upholding the right of the state to enact such legislation as had been enacted in the prohibition amendment.
 The opinion continues:
 Tt being settled that traffic in in- toxicating liquor in this state is crime. it follows that the shipment, transportation or introduction of in- toxicating liquor into the state with the intention to sell, barter, exchange give away, or dispose of, divests, under the Webb-Kenyon act, such intoxicat- ing liquor of it's interstate commerce character and leaves the state free in the exercise of it's police powers to de- nounce such introduction as crime and to prescribe penalties for it's con- mission In other words, one who in- troduces intoxicating liquor into the state with the purpose and intention of violating the laws of the state by disposing of the same may not now interpose the defense that he is en- gagged in interstate commerce, for the reason that the article that he is handling has been invested of it's interstate character by the Webb Kenyon act. Intoxicating liquor. in the aspect of being received, possess ed, or kept, or in some way used in a manner prohibited by the laws of the state to which it is to be, or is in fact, imported" Is an outlaw. and di- vested of its interstate character and withdrawn from interstate protection at the hands of the federal govern ment."
 Coming to the chief issue in the same, the court says:
 The appellant sought to show by preference, that the liquor with which he is charged with introducing into the state was for his personal use, upon the theory that the prohibition amendment to the constitution does not denounce or define personal use of indicating liquors as crime. He contends that it is not unlawful in this state to have in possession or to drink intoxicating liquors; that the Webb-Kenyon act does not divest or attempt to divest intoxicating liquors of their interstate character when shipped, transported or introduced into the state from without the state to be possessed or used for a lawful purpose.
 Search the prohibition amendment and you will, there is no suggestion or information in any form contained therein, prohibiting the possession or individual consumpoitn of intoxicating liquors in Arzona. Indeed, it was freely admitted upon the argument by counsel who appealed as amici curio that it is not a crime to possess or drink intoxicating liquors. in Ari- zona, and while the attorney general, at least in a brief, insists that the use or possession is crime, he fails to cite us to a single instance where a prosecution has been begun in any county of the state against any per son for drinking intoxicating liquors or having it in his possession.
 The records of the courts through out the state evidence many prosecu- tions for the sale of intoxicating Ii. quors since the prohibition amend ment went into effect. st is common knowledge that personal use has been more or less prevalent through out the state and the effort has been not to punish the user, but the seller thereof The bootlegger and not his patrons have had the attention of the
 (Continued on Page S.)