Milford chronicle., 1917-01-12
LIQUOR MUST NOT
GO TO "DRY" STATES
Supreme Court Gives Far-Reaehins De-
eisiOn On the Rights Of States.

| 3titutiOnal and valid the WeDD-heu-
yon law prohibiting shipments of IL
luOr from wet" TO dry" states. It
Ilso sustained West Virginia's recent
amendment to her law prohibiting
importation through interstate COM
nerce Of liquor for personal use.
After having been vetoed by Presi-
/ lent Taft, and having been repassed
| Jy Congress over his veto. the law
/ vas sustained by the Supreme Court
1y a vote of z to 2.
Lawyers for liquor interests who
heard the decision admitted It upheld
and applied the law I'm its fullest
sense"
Chief Justice White announced the
majority opinion, TO which Justices
Holmes and Vandeventer dissented.
Justice McReynolds, while agreeing
with the majority decision, did not
concur in the opinion.
Digest Of the Opinion.
An official digest Of the majority
opinion, prepared by the court, sets
out it's holdings as follows:
Il. That the West Virginia law,
beside prohibiting the manufacture
and sale of all intoxicants excepts as
20 that which is permitted for medical
sacramental and manufacturing pur-
poses, also forbids all transportation
of liquor and all receipt and possess
sion Of liquor transported in the state,
whether originating in or outside OF
the state, and although it does not
prohibit personal use, puts serious re-
strictions upon the power to obtain
or such use.
1.-The court holds that In view Of the
we'll established police authority OF
the state over intoxicants there is no
reason to think that this law was in
any wise repugnant to the due pro-
cess clause of the fourteenth amend
ment to the constitution of the Unit
ed State. II however, decides that un
less the state authority has an eXcep-
tional application to shipments of in
terstate commerce as the result of the
act of Congress known as the Webb
Kenyon law, the provisions of the
state laws restricting shipments Of in
tOxicants into the state from other
states would be unconstitutional be-
cause interfering with the power Of
Congress to regulate commerce among
the states and consequently would be
A direct burden upon such commerce.
40 Considering the Webb-KenyOn
act the court holds that there Is no
foundation for the contention that the
act only applies to shipments from
one state into another for a use pro-
hibited by the state to which the IL
quOr is shipped On the contrary, it
is decided that the Webb-Kenyon act,
TO use the words of the act, applies to
shipments of liquors intended to be
received, possessed, sold or in any
manner used in violation Of the laws
of the state. AS this conclusion caus-
es every prohibition of the West Vir-
ginia law to be embraced and come
under the right conferred by congress
by tine Webb Kenyon act. II Is de-
cided that the West Virginia law was
not in conflict with the commerce
clause of the constitution and the
powers of congress to regulate com
merce, If Congress had power to enact
the Webb-KenyOn law.
Congress Within It's Rights.
"3. Disposing of that question, It is
iecided that Congress had the power
under the constitution to adopt the
bb-Kenyon law, whether consider
I'd from the point Of view or original
reasoning, or in the light Of the pre-
vious legislature by Congress and the
decisions of the court holding that
legislation valid. 1t is therefore de-
cided that by virtue of the Webb
Kenyon law there is no power to ship
intOxicants from one state into an
other in violation Of the prohibitions
of the law of the state into which the
liquor ish shipped In other words, it
Is decided that since the enactment o.
the Webb-Kenyon law the channels of
interstate commerce may not be used
to convey liquor into state against
the prohibitions of its laws or to use
interstate commerce as the basis for
a right to receive, or possess, or to
handle liquor contrary to the state
prohibition.
Validity Long Questioned.
The question OF the constitutional
lty of the Webb-Kenyon liquor law
was raised long before its enactment
in 1918 by Congress, and questions
over its construction were raised i'm
mediately after It went into effect.
The law was entitled "an act di-
NC5AluE AuNOAAldAiuB AAAuOAc Va AhIAA
interstate character in certain cases"
1t provided in a few words that the
shipment of intoxicating liquors from
one state to another, which intoxi-
eating liquor is intended by any per-
son interested therein, to be received,
possessed, sold or in any manner used
in violation of any law of such state
is hereby prohibited.
Twenty-four days after the law was
enacted by Congress over President
Taft's veto, a grand jury in Whitley
county, Ky, a dry county," indicted
the Adams Express Company for car
rying intoxicating liquor from Ten
nessee into Whitley county, in viola
ton Of the Kentucky statute making
1t unlawful to carry liquor into dry"
territory. The company was fined
$50. so small a fine that it could not
appeal to the higher Kentucky courts,
so an appeal was taken directly to
the United States Supreme Court.
Six weeks before the passage of the
law. however. West Virginia had en-
acted a state prohibition law. shortly
after It became effective In July, 1914,
the James Clark Distilling Company
L.