Tombstone epitaph., 1917-01-28

word transport" as used in the Pro hibition Amendment, one should be governed more by the place and the manner of transporting than by mere distance. or instance, if person were upon a highway with liquor in his possession, that fact alone would be sufficient, no matter how short a dis tance the removal; while man might continuously carry bottle of liquor 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, a short distance away. the act would come within the Prohibition Amendment.
 3. Upon a 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 State and the prohibition applies to all intoxicating liquors within the State. no matter when brought in, even though the liquor were possessed prior to January 1st, 1915. when the original Amendment went into effect.
 4. Your 4th question is practically disposed of in my answer to the first one. The law prohibits the trans portation of intoxicating liquor. re- gardless of quantity, and any quantity would be violation of the law
 ,. In all cases where the liquor is ' simply in possession of the holder and no evidence of sale or transporta- tion, for the protection of yourself and your office would say the wisest course for you to pursue would be to give the persons having liquor the | benefit of the doubt and take no ac- tion, except in suspicious cases to be vigilant for violations of the law. In the last part of question No 5. I pre- sume you refer to liquor in your pos session, which has been returned to | the owner by order of the Court In 1 that case any removal of same would be a violation of the law, whether from the County Jail or any other place.
 l 6. This goes back to the question of interstate shipments. and the an- swer must depend. to a great extent, upon the circumstances surrounding each shipment. It would be impos- sible to lay down an iron clad rule for your government in all cases where liquor may be claimed to be in transit from one state to another. It is my opinion that intoxicating liquors, which are shipped from some other state and are in transit to another state, through the State of Arizona, does not come within the Prohibition Amendment, so long as the liquor re- mains in the original package and is | in continuous transit. Continuous transit, in my opinion, does not mean that the liquor must be moving at all times, but so long as it remains ab- solutely in the hands of the transpor- tatioE company, or a common carrier, and no effort is made to transfer it within this State, it remains under the protection of interstate commerce. The shipment must be bona fide to come within this protection, and ship ments made in an unusual and expen- sive manner should be looked upon with suspicion, for instance, if a per son should have liquor in an automo- bile coming from New Mexico through this County. and, upon beiny stopped, should claim that he was transporting it to the State of California, or even into the Republic of Mexico at Douglas or Naco, in my opinion, it would be your duty to arrest him and leave it to the Court and a jury to say whether his claim was in good faith; and he was entitled to the pro tection of the Federal Law, as it is not reasonable that any person would transfer shipment of liquor from a railroad running to the same point of delivery. into an automobile to be transported at a greater cost, loss of time and inconvenience.
 Very respectfully,
 JOHN F. ROSS,
 County Attorney.