Show Right To Possess L L Liquor Is Denied V Right to possess liquors for personal personal personal per per- use under the dot ct were denied In ill Utah b by an opinion handed down clown In the supreme court which In effect held the state prohibition prohibition pro pro- law was not superseded by bythe bythe bythe the federal statute or the tho constitutional constitutional i Honal amendment The case is one brought nt before the supreme court on in tho the appeal of Jean Johnson from a judgment entered against her by Judge L. L B B. B Wight of the Third district court or Salt Lake county holding confiscate to the state certain bonded liquors purchased purchased pur pur- chased ed by her prior to the date when whan they the act went Into effect federal statute permits the possession possession possession pos pos- session of intoxicating liquor in ones one's home but put no such permission is provided provided pro pro- vided for in the state statute I Justice Valentine Gideon writing the tho opinion which Is concurred In by other justices of the court bases his findings on a decision handed down in the supreme court of the United States under date of D December Decem- Decem cem- cem ber bel 11 1922 in ill the caSe case of the United States versus Lanzo This decision held that the amendment to the constitution was adopted for the purpose of establishing prohibition as a national policy reaching every part of the country and affecting transactions which are es essentially local lo local lo- lo cal calor or intrastate as well as those pertaining too fo to Intrastate commerce Under this decision it I Is held that the constitution further authorized the the congress congress and the several states to take legislative steps to make effective effective effective tive the amendment amendment It was held th that t such steps as taS wore were adopted by either state or nation became lawsin lawsin laws lawsin in the respective Jurisdictions though the laws might t vary in many particulars Further the United States court held that the respective sta states es held power to pass prohibition i i laws prior to the u adoption of the thee eighteenth e amendment and there- there J i 1 f that the note ta not not get their get theIr power power fower from the eighteenth amend ment mente In effect this decision continues the second section of the eighteenth amendment put an end to restrictions restrictions restrictions upon the st states state's tes te's power arising out of the federal constitution and left her her free tJ td to enact prohibition laws applying to alt ail transactions within her limits I To be sure the first section of the amendment t took ok from the states stales all power to authorize acts failing fading within its but it if did not cut down dow or displace prior state laws not inconsistent with It Such laws derive t their force as do all new ones consistent with It not from this amendment but from power originally originally originally nally belonging to the states preserved preserved preserved pre pre- served to them by the tho tent tenth amendment amendment amendment amend amend- ment and now relieved from the restriction restriction re re- re- re heretofore arising out of the federal constitution Justice Gideon observes that there is nothing in the Utah prohibition law conflicting or inconsistent with the national amendment or act In effect the d decision ciston tends to deprive the woman or ner liquors and In addition assesses costs of appeal appeal appeal ap ap- ap- ap I peal against her er |