The Alaska citizen., 1917-01-15

state to another. which in toxicating liquor is intended by any person interested therein. to be re ceived, 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 it unlawful for any per son in that state "to receive, directly or indirectly, intoxicating liquors from common or other carrier. The law also was made applicable to liquors intended for personal use or otherwise and tu interstate aS well as intrastate shipments. An other clause. however. permits per sons to personally carry into the state liquor. not exceeding hali gallon, for personal use and when plainly labelled Before the supreme court, the liquor interests argued that this latter clause gave the right to have and use" liquor and that, there. 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 ques. tions were presented in appeal of the James Clark Distilling Co.,. from 8 decree of Federal Judge Rose oi Maryland dismissing injunction suits against the American Express Co.,. and Western Maryland railroad. in which the distiller sought to require the carriers to accept liquor for ship ment into West Virginia for personal use of consignees whose orders were received by mail Sections of the West Virginia law also made liquor order solicitations by mail illegal and made the place of delivery of liquor the place of sale; these sections were also attacked as invalid before the supreme court.
 The Webb Kenyon law was before the supreme court once before. in { Kentucky liquor case. but the court did not then determine it's validity holding merely that as Kentucky : constitution did not permit prohibi ion of personal use" of liquor the Webb Kenyon Act was not applicable
 here Constitutionality of the Webb Kenyon law was questioned even be ore it's passage. President Taft anC Attorney General Wickersham held i, an unconstitutional delegation of fed eral power to the states to interfere with interstate commerce. Congres promptly passed it over the veto, in february, 1913.
 Later as Attorney General the present Supreme Court Justice Nc Reynolds ruled that the law is not d penal act and that prosecutions fol US violation could not be brought ir
 ederal courts.
 Virtually every inferior federal ant tate court which has considered tho statute has upheld it's constitution
 .lity; several cases have arisen in Delaware, Tennessee, Iowa, Texas Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia
 Kansas, South Carolina, MississippI and Idaho
 Now pending before the supreme court is another case from Norti Carolina raising validity of the fed eral law which probably will depend lpon the courts decision in the pres | mt West Virginia cases. These two cases were twice argued before in
 Hay, 1915, and November, 1916, anG Attorneys General of Arizona, Idaho
 ieorgia, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi North Carolina, North Dakota, Okla homa, Oregon, South Carolina, Ten | nessee, Virginia, Washington and Ala | 5ama filed a brief asking the court 0 uphold the federal statute.