That he had allowed himself to be bamboozled out of his one-time supply of liquor by blindly following a law which is not a law; to be explicit, it is. Hehson, an associate editor of the Virginia Law Register, writing in the current number of that publication, raises the question of constitutional validity of the prohibition act, in so far as the one-quarter provision is concerned. "In the round that there is expressed in the title of the act only an inhibition against transportation for sale," Section 11, of the Constitution, provides that "no law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title." What about transportation for simple drinking purposes? It is possible that the One-Quarter has missed some of the joy of life by being a strict adherent to that doctrine? In presenting the question, the Ken son says: "Under the rule that the Legislature is presumed to mean something by what it is by use of the expression 'for sale' the Legislature must be presumed to mean for sale. Any other construction would read out of the title the two words mentioned. Words can be read out of a statute only when necessary to give effect to.  An intent to be clearly appearing with its four errors. No such rule is a plausible rule for there is no ambiguity."
"Since still further into legal ambiguity, Mr. Fenner says it is a fact that the legislature, under the Constitution, has the right to resubmit the transportation of goods." 