Grand Forks herald., 1917-02-23

law is constitutional or not before h<
VIII consent to be governed by It
That 10 one Of the rights which every
citizen possesses. ana that Is one OF
the things for which tho courts exist
II the so-oalled bone dry measure
which 10 just now attracting close at
tention receives the signature Of the
president it will. Of course, be con-
tested. and the supreme court will be
called on to pass on 1t. Ono Of the
features which seems likely to be
made the basis Of attack Is what will
be maintained as the arbitrary en-.
trance of the federal government into
the field of state legislation.
1t has long been settled that rne
state has a right to prohibit the
manufacture and sale Of intoxicants
within its borders if it desires to do
so. Many laws for this purpose have
been enacted, and their effectiveness
has been impaired by tho freedom
with which such beverages could be
shipped from state to- state, no mat
ter for what purpose they were in
tended. Under the Webb Kenyon law.
which has recently been sustained by
the supreme court, liquors cannot be
shipped into a state to be used in
violation Of the laws of that state.
That Is. If state prohibits the sale
Of liquor, the shipment Of liquor into
that state for purposes Of sale be-
comes an offense against the federal
law. If the state prohibits the ~im-
portation or possession of liquor, then
the shipment Of liquor into that state
for any purpose whatever becomes an
offcnse against the federal law. The
right of the state to license. prohibit
or regulate Is admitted. and the fed
eral law is so framed as to reinforce
the state law.
The new legislation prohibits the
shipment of liquor into a state for
any purpose If the sale of liquor in
that state is prohibited. The objec-
ton which Is certain to be raised IL
that this legislation imposes on the
citizens of state restrictions which
they have not seen At to impose on
themselves, and that 1t Is therefore
a usurpation Of the right of the state
to regulate its own affairs. North
Dakota, for instance, is operating
under a law which prohibits tho
manufacture and sale Of liquor with
in the state. but which does not pro-
hibit its importation for personal USE
The state legislature could prohibit
the possession Of liquor for personal
use II it desired to do 30. If 1t does
not do so that fact may be accepted
as the expression of an intent to per-
NIT such importation. But this new
law prohibits that which the legis-
lature Of the state desires to permit
Hence, it will be urged, tho measure
is unconstitutional.
On still another ground the meas
ure is likely to be attacked. It IN so
framed as to operate unequally as
between states. Under It, contrary to
what must be accepted as the intent
of the legislature, tho North Dakota
citizen may not import liquors for his
personal use. In New York. or any
other wet state. there Is no interior
ence with the legislative intent.
The law, If this measure becomes
law, and is sustained, is likely to
have two< almost opposite effects. 1t
will tend to make actually dry some
states which are now nominally so,
and in which the prohibition senti-
ment is very strong. It will unques-
uonably tend to prevent the adoption
Of prohibition laws in states where
the sentiment is sufficiently strong to
demand the extinction of the saloon,
but not strong enough to demand the
complete prohibition Of the posses
sion and use Of liquor by individuals.
Under this law there will be no, pos
sible middle ground.