The Sentinel=record., 1918-02-05
HlGH C0URT DECISION
 WON BY RICHARD RYAN
The Webb Kenyon Federal Act, Pro. hibiting Taking Liquor Into Dry Territory, However, Still Stands in the Way of Free Bringing of Liquor Into Arkansas From Elsewhere.

Attorney Richard Ryan O, tljs div tak'ng an appeal to the supreme court or coinYiction against his client. Tony Edward, which conviction was adh the circuit court here. was re- sponsible for decision in the sll- preme court yesterday in effect that bringing liquor into the state is not In violation of the bone dry law, a ruling which Is contrary to the minor court decisions over the st4.e, and under which many have been coG- victed already
 The decision held that person could personally bring lqu0r inlo the state, and that 1t did not natrcr. in- solar as the bone dry law vas .ca- cefned, Whe her the liquor was for personal consumption or Or sale. If aor sale, the court pointed olt. con victions could be obtained under the Statewide prohibition law. f fer prr- sonat use the act did not conssitu an offense under either has,
 One legal barrier, the Wg55-6enyon law, federal statute, prohibiting the taking of intoxicating liquors into dry territory, still stands bar to prevent the importation of licuor Federal agents, however have been ordered not to search suitaases for liquor
 The bone dry law. the Supreme Court held prohibits the transoorta- ton or shipment of liquo.s mo the state. The cuecking of trunk con talning liquor would come under the head of violating the law. it was pointed out under the courts decision. as it would constitute a shipment
 The decision was based on a con- yiction of A. r (Tony) Rlyard of Hot Springs, convicted in the Garland Circuit Court of bringing liquor into the state The Garland Circuit Court instructed the jury that if Riyard brought the liquor into the state to sell he violated the bone dry law. but that if he brought it in for personal use he did not violate the law. The Supreme Court, however. ruled that neither constituted an offense. but that if Riyard had liquor for sale he could be reached under other stat utes.
 The courts decision. handed down by Juctice Hart, was concurred in by all justices with the exception of Jus tice Humphreys The decision, in part, follows.
 Other states have forbidden en- tirely the introduction of intoxicating liquors within their borders Such states have enacted statutes not only prohibiting liquors into the state or deliver ng them to persons there but have forbidden persons from bringing into the state intoxicating liquors for their own personal use
 Tn all statutes we have examined when it is intended to prohibit any person from introducing liquors inp9 the state, the language of the state has expressly forbidden such persons from bringing liquors into the state.
 ''lt will be observed that the sec ton uses the words. to ship or to transport into, or deliver in this state It would seem that the words to ship or to transport would include de livery to the consignee by the initaial carrier in person, and that the words to deliver were meant to place the ban of the status upon any transfer company or person who should un- dertake to deliver to the constance the intoxlcants ater they had arrived at the place of destination,
 The concluding part of Section is for the purpose of harmonizing sections of the act and allowing the carrier or other person to transport or to deliver into the state wine for sacramental purposes or alcohol for medicinal Jr mechanical purposes under provisions of Section ] of this act. Other states have sections ssm- liar to that of Section of our stat inte. and Gonclude with the words. or