Bisbee daily review., 1917-01-26
COUNTY ATTORNEY IN OPINION UPON PROhI
 AMENDMENT TO LAWS
Letter Sent to Sheriff Wheeler Who Asks the Attorney for Opinion-Omcers to Worl, on Interpretation.

Answering the questions of Sheriff Harry c. Wheeler, regarding the new prohibition law. County Attorney J. F. Ross has prepared the following opin ion:
 Tombstone, Arizona, Jan. IS. 1917. Hon. Harry c. Wheeler, Sheriff,
 Cochise County,
 Tombstone, Arizona.
 Dear Sir:
 Your communication containing the following questions, received.
 l. On which date did said law take effect? (referring to the Prohibition Law adopted November, IS16). l. Just what is contemplated by the use of the word transport" 3. In the case of liquor having been in ones possession previous to said laws passage, would it be un lawful to remove, or transfer, said liquor, just as it would be unlawful to transport liquor introduced uese- quent to the passage of the recent Prohibition Law?
 A. Is it lawful for one to transfer, from place to place, liqucr in small quantities, say as much as one bottle? :. When finding or locating aBy great amount of liquor, nd there i3 doubt as to whether or not said liquor was, or was not, introduced since the recent laws passage, what would be the wisest course, in your opinion t. pursue. In the case of liquor now jn my possession, is it not violation for any owner to transport or move said liquor from the County Jail to any other point?
 6. In case of liquor being shipped from one state to another, and through Arizona, would said shipment be considered violation of the laws of this state?
 l will answer your questions con secutively, as they are numbered.
 L Paragraph 3333 Of the Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1913, provides. (after making provision fer canvass ing the votes cast 1n measurel: That the governor shall forthwith issue his proclamation, giving the whole number of votes cast in the state for and against each measure and proposed constitutional amend ments as are applJved by majority of those voting thereon to De in full force and effect ds the law of the State of Arizona, from the late oI said proclamation" From this para graph you will note that the law tooA effect immediately upon the proclama ton being issued oy the governor.
 ?. Webster defines tho word "traDs port" as follows: ''To carry O. con vey from one plaace to mother" Tn, legal definition Is given in about th same words, as follows: "'To remove to carry, or convey, from oLa place to another; 10 carry. bear or conve. from one place or country 10 another, 3S Cyc, 946. Nou will note that tn definition given by these two autbori ties is very broad, aad fixes no limi tation. It has been held that the act of a station agent, who removed lie our from the platform where it wa. unloaded by the train crew into th freight room was d violation of tn law against transporting liquor, Stat vs. Rhodes, 24 l.. R. A., 2i5. In tht case Of State vs. Pope, so $. F., 234 it was held in q prosecution for trans porting Ccntrahand liquor. where the defendant was found at the church selling liquor from bottles in his pos session, the presumption is that he carried it there" The reasoning il this case is that, q person having liQ our in his possession at an unusual place carries with it the clear pre- sumption that he brought it there, anC therefore transported it. Again the mere removal of liquor a distance 9i F feet is held violation of the law prohibiting the transportation of in toXicating liquor On the other hand it has -been held that, where the re moval of liquor is within a person.. domicile, and is only removed from room to room, it is not violation oi law prohibiting the transportation ot aliquOr, 1st WOolen x Thornton on in toxicting Liquor. Sec. 2f9.
 On examination of the authorities is it by opinion that in cHIstruing The word transport, as used in the Pro hibition Amendment, une should be governed more by the place and the manner of tranSpoIt:n; thdu by mare distance, for instance, if person were upon highway with liquor in his pos session, that fact alone would hc sur- 6cient, no matter how short a distance the removal; while a man might con tinuously Carry bottle af ljdno. in his pocket in his own dwelling house, and not in violation of the law, on the other hand, should he carry the same bottle from his residence to his place of business, short distance away. the act would come within the Prohibition Amendment.
 3. Upon d careful reading of the Amendment it is my opinion that it was the intention of the people in adopting it to prohibit the transport ing of intoxicating liquors within the .pJ fIa Yvpbfhitinp apnIiac fp