The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1917-01-09
LIQUOR UNPROTECTED BY
INTERSTATE COMMERCE
supreme Court Decision Gives State
Legislature Power to Make Pro-
hibition Absolute.
TEMPERANCE FOLK REJOICE
United states Circuit Court mt Rich
mond Which Decided West Vir-
ginia Webb Kenyon Case Nearly
Two Years Ago Is Upheld.

! Supreme Court sustains Webb
Kenyon case: sweeping victory for
cause" That brief message. sent
from Washington by Wayne Il. Wheel
Ter. general counsel for the AntiSa
loon League, was received yesterday
afternoon by Attorney-General Pol
lard, who. as attorney of Vir
ginia, Joined with attorneys general OF
other interested States which on brief
became parties with West Virginia in
the argument of the cause before the
United states Supreme Court, The
news was communicated to other pro-
hihition leaders OF Virginia In Rich
mond.
All expressed their elation. receiv-
ing with great rejoicing news of the
sweeping victory that has been won
by the states in their contention for
the right To enact legislation that Will
actually and absolutely prohibit the
manufacture, sale and use of alcoholic
beverages. rs the States may will.
To Bring Absolute Prohibition.
The upholding by the Supreme
Court OF the Webb Kenyon act takes
away from the liquor shipping inter
nerce giving the States the right to
enact legislation that will bring alb
solute prohibition" said DR. r. II.
PITT. president of the Anti Saloon
League Of Virginia, when informed Of
the Supreme Courts action. 1T will
he an immense help to tho States in
bringing about absolute prohibition"
1T is the most sweeping victory for
prohibition eFer-won Ia the courts
ment.
That's good news" said Rev. J.
sidney Peters. prohibition commits
SION of Virginia. IT'S a most glorious
victory"
The West Virginia Case
The case out Of which the Supreme
Court decision Of yesterday grew was
one in which a resident Of West Nir
ginia some two years ago received
shipments OF beer and liquor from
Cincinnati liquor house. The case
was tried in the Circuit Court of
KAnahwa County. West Virginia, in
which the state of West Nirgnia sued
the Adams Express Company, r. II.
Clendnuin and Edward Beigel alleg-
ing that Bcigel sent through the malls
from Conclnnati TO persons in West
Virginia soliciting purchases OF liquor
contrary to law. that Clendenin, in
duCcd by such solicitation, ordered a
quantity Of beer. which was carried 10y
the express company from Cincin-
( natl to Charleston. w. Va. and held
/ there for delivery when the bill was
J fled
The case came before the United
I States Circuit Court OF Appeals. at
/ Richmond. in which were sitting
/ Judges Woods. Knapp and Waddill, on
! az \ OF riCt
/ Court at Charleston, W. Va. 1t was
argued December 9.'19l4. by Fred 0.
Blue and Wayne Il. Wheeler, for the
( State of West Virginia, and by
f, George f. Price. Joseph S. Graydon
/ and Lawrence Maxwell for the ex-
I press company. Decision was handed
( down on January 49, 1915. The opin
! ION was written by Judge Woods and
concurrcd in by Judges Knapp and
+ Waddin.
( Place of Delivery Place of sale.
/ The decision upheld both conten
| tons OF the state of West Virginia
| that the use Of the mails i'm sending
/ liquor advertising matter constitutes
solicitation and that tho place of de-
| livery Is the place of sale The de-
! cis.on also held that the Webb Ken
! Won law confers on the States ample
| powers of control over the traffic in
| intoxicating liquors from sources out
| side the States
THE appeal" said the Circuit Court
at Richmond. in reaching It's decision,
/ requires the consideration Of the
scope and effect of the West Virginia
constitutional and statute law and tho
effect upon il of the act of Congress
OF March / 1918. known as the Webb
Kenyon act.
In trying to comprehend tho legis-
lative purpose of. prohibition statutes
/ il is important Tn remember that
the ultimate end sought. in prohibit
ZION legislation * not the prevention
or restriction Of mere sale OF intoSi-
cants, but the prevention of their
consumption as n beverage. -
We are not concerned In this case
with the question of whether the
State Legislature or the State LeEis-
lature and the Congress in conlunc-
tion can forbid n citizen to drink In
toxicating liquors or purchase them in
another State and bring them into
the State OF West Virginia for mis-
own consumption: but with the very
different question whether the State
may forhid the sale of liquor within
it's borders and make the delivery by
carrier a sale at the place of deliv-
cry; and whether the Congress can
prohibit the transportation in the
State by the common carrier of liquor
SO as to be delivered contrary to the
law OF the State. We think 1t can
be dem onstrated that this question
must be answered In the affirmative:
that it can be made perfectly manifest
that shipments into the State and de-
liveries by common carriers, by which
liquor dealers outside of prohibition
States were enabled to thwart the
efforts of the state governments to
save the people of the State from the
liquor evil have been forbidden by
State legislation made valid by with-
drawal of the protection of interstate
commerce from such shipments under
the act of Cong ress known as the
Webb Kenyon act.
IAN other decisions. we think, are
in complete accord with the con-
clusion we have reached; namely, that
the Webb Kenyon act puts without
the protection of interstate commerce
the liquor shipped into the State to
ffc sold, received or used. when sale,
receipt and use IS forbidden by State
/ law.
I ''As to intoxicating liquors. though
4 universally recognized as deleterious.
I tho CnpurexG Gnan