Crane v. Campbell/Opinion of the Court
An act of the Legislature of Idaho, approved February 18, 1915, 'defining prohibition districts and regulating and prohibiting the manufacture, sale, * * * transportation for sale or gift, and traffic in intoxicating liquors,' etc. (Session Laws of Idaho 1915, c. 11), provides:

'Sec. 2. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, company      or corporation, its officers or agents, to sell, manufacture      or dispose of any intoxicating liquor or alcohol of any kind      within a prohibition district or have in his or its      possession or to transport any intoxicating liquor or alcohol      within a prohibition district unless the same was procured      and is so possessed and transported under a permit as      hereinafter provided: Provided, that so long as the      manufacture of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes      shall not be prohibited within the state by the Constitution      or by general law applicable by its terms to the state as a      whole, it shall not be unlawful for any person, company or      corporation to manufacture intoxicating liquors for beverage      purposes in a prohibition district for transportation to and      sale outside of the prohibition district: Provided, that      nothing in this act shall be construed to apply to the      manufacture, transportation or sale of wood or denatured      alcohol.' 'Sec. 15. It shall be unlawful for any person to import,   ship, sell, transport, deliver, receive or have in his   possession any intoxicating liquors except as in this   act provided.'

'Sec. 22. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, company,      corporation or agent to have in his or its possession any      intoxicating liquors of any kind for any use or purpose      except the same shall have been obtained and is so possessed      under a permit authorized by this act.'

Plaintiff in error was arrested and held in custody by the sheriff, in default of bail, solely because charged with having 'in his possession a bottle of whisky for his own use and benefit and not for the purpose of giving away or selling the same to any person' within Latah county, Idaho-a prohibition district-on May 16, 1915, in violation of the quoted sections. He sued out a writ of habeas corpus from the state Supreme Court and sought discharge upon the ground that those sections were in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment, federal Constitution, and therefore void. The court held:

'The only means provided by the act for procuring      intoxicating liquors in a prohibition district for any      purpose relates to wine to be used for sacramental purposes      and pure alcohol to be used for scientific or mechanical      purposes, or for compounding or preparing medicine, so that      the possession of whisky, or of any intoxicating liquor,      other than wine and pure alcohol for the uses above      mentioned, is prohibited.'

'We have reached the conclusion that this act is not in      contravention of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the      Constitution of the United States; * * * that it was passed      by the Legislature with a view to the protection of the      public health, the public morals and the public safety; that      it has a real and substantial relation to those objects, and      that it is, therefore, a reasonable exercise of the police      power of the state.' In re Ed. Crane, 27 Idaho, 671, 151 Pac. 1006.

The writ was accordingly quashed and the petitioner remanded to custody.

The question presented for our determination, is whether the Idaho statute, in so far as it undertakes to render criminal the mere possession of whisky for personal use, confilicts with that portion of the Fourteenth Amendment which declares:

'No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge      the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United      States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,      liberty, or property, without due process of law.'

Its validity under the state Constitution is not open for our consideration; with its wisdom this court is not directly concerned.

It must now be regarded as settled that, on account of their well-known noxious qualities and the extraordinary evils shown by experience commonly to be consequent upon their use, a state has power absolutely to prohibit manufacture, gift, purchase, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within its borders without violating the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 29, 21 L. Ed. 929; Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U.S. 25, 33, 24 L. Ed. 989; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 662, 8 Sup. Ct. 273, 31 L. Ed. 205; Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U.S. 86, 91, 11 Sup. Ct. 13, 34 L. Ed. 620; Purity Extract Co. v. Lynch, 226 U.S. 192, 201, 33 Sup. Ct. 44, 57 L. Ed. 184; Clark Distilling Co. v. Western Md. Ry. Co., 242 U.S. 311, 320, 321, 37 Sup. Ct. 180, 61 L. Ed. 326, L. R. A. 1917B, 1218, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 845; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. North Carolina, 245 U.S. 298, 38 Sup. Ct. 96, 62 L. Ed. --.

As the state has the power above indicated to prohibit, it may adopt such measures as are reasonably appropriate or needful to render exercise of that power effective. Booth v. Illinois, 184 U.S. 425, 22 Sup. Ct. 425, 46 L. Ed. 623, Silz v. Hesterberg, 211 U.S. 31, 29 Sup. Ct. 10, 53 L. Ed. 75, Murphy v. California, 225 U.S. 623, 32 Sup. Ct. 697, 56 L. Ed. 1229, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 153, and Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis, 240 U.S. 342, 364, 36 Sup. Ct. 370, 60 L. Ed. 679, L. R. A. 1917A, 421, ann. Cas. 1917B, 455. And, considering the notorious difficulties always attendant upon efforts to suppress traffic in liquors, we are unable to say that the challenged inhibition of their possession was arbitrary and unreasonable or without proper relation to the legitimate legislative purpose.

We further think it clearly follows from our numerous decisions upholding prohibition legislation that the right to hold intoxicating liquors for personal use is not one of those fundamental privileges of a citizen of the United States which no state may abridge. A contrary view would be incompatible with the undoubted power to prevent manufacture, gift, sale, purchase or transportation of such articles-the only feasible ways of getting them. An assured right of possession would necessarily imply some adequate method to obtain not subject to destruction at the will of the state.

The judgment of the court below must be Affirmed. 

Notes