Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1918-03-01
'HO[Ds RIGHT TO REQUIRE
CERTIFICATE
l>tice Tucker Decides for EsprcsS
Company in Case Involving
Liquor Shipment.
,l> MAXI ORDINARY RULES
INC Claiming Privileges Denied IL
FELLOW titi/cus Must Show That
&c Has Right To BE in the Ia
yurcu Glass. Says Court

u INC rIrht az common carriers 70 re
sure, under the Escd "bonc-dry'
physirian's certificate
ysfo-c n&k!ng deliveries of liquor for
lrriic.nal purpose is sustained by jus
c " Crurlp Tucker. of the Civ!l Jus
r'cc court i'm an opinion just rendered
Nrus point came up in contest suit
E.rouGhi by J !. Redmond against the
Ndams Express Company recently for
,lc possession Of one quart OF whisky
winch the carrier would not deliver
A3thout physicians certificate that
4, was intended 70: medicinal use.
81; is not within the power of a
carrier TO lcsielatc upon the morals or
wolfarc OF people. or to promulgatc
rules solely for this purpose" Justice
Tucker said in his opinion. hut when,
as here. law is passed bearing di-
rec'ly upon The conduct Of its bust
ness. i think IL Is proper for the car
ritr 10 adopt Such reasonable resula-
tons as may - necessary to insure its
compliance with the law ana to pre-
vent its facilities being used by others
in manner prohibited by law.
MUST SHOW THAT HE
COMES IN FAVORED CLASS
"Conccding. AS think we must.
tho right OF the carrier to attcmp; 10
separate the legal from the illegal
traffic offered IL for shipment. in what
way was this an unreasonable exercise
OF that right? cannot see that any
one is prevented by this rule from re-
ceiving liquor who is entitled under
tho law to have 1t brought into the
state.
The only complaint that can he
made of the regulation is that ii IS
effective in preventing the shipment OF
liquor in cases where the Law expressly
prohibits its being transported 1t is
inconvenience, but it must be remcm-
bored that ne is claiming privilege
denied to his fellow citizens in gen
cral and he should not complain of
INC necessity OF showing that he comes
within the favored class"
{This suit was warmly contested when
afard several weeks ago by Justice
Tucker. Counsel argued the various
POINTS involved for several hours and
later submitted numerous authorities
Cnr tho consideration OF the court. The
Iourt found that the Reed amendment
lid not prescribe as to how tho law
Mas to be enforced. but simply pro-
-iihitcd the Transportation" Of liquor.
view OF this fact. since heavy fines
were imposed upon carriers for viola
. ions. he believed they should be al
A"wcd 10 promulgatc regulations for
hhcir own protection.
f'lrn RNrRE:SS COMPANY
For POSSESSION OF LIQUOR
Redmond sued the Adams Express
company in dctinuc proceeding for
he possession Of one quart of liquor.
valued al s., which had been shipped
- him from Baltimore. The express
company refused 10 make delivery
until he presented a certificate from a
.nractlcing physician that the whisky
.vas intended for medicinal purposes.
which y" declined TO do.
officials of the express company dur
.nS tho trial presented figures that
during the month of July lsl7-,he
hrst month the Reed amendment was
IN epcration-only 100 quarts OF LIQUOR
were received in Richmond. This iraf-
nc Increased. however, until during the
month Of October, when the regulation
was placed in operation there were
Approximately 80 quarts Of liquor
being received daily
1t was because OF this great Increase
IN traffic. officials said and for their
Swn protection. that the certificate Of
,bhysicians was required Consiruees
OF liquor are now required to nh out
the affidavit provided by the state
Prohibition Commissioners in addition
10. presenting the phySiciau's ccrti,.
cate"
-.