Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1915-12-17
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
MEET TO CONFER ON
PROHIBITION LAWS
Attorney General Says Ii Is
Illegal to Ship Liquor
c. 0. D.

The State District Attorneys associ-
alton met at the offices of Attorney
General Brown today to discuss the en-
lforcement of the 1916 prohibition law
Since many of the district attorneys
have never lived in a dry county it
was considered that an open discussion
Of the law would tend to put them all
on the same basis as to the interpreta-
ton of the law. Walter H. Evans,
district attorney of Multnomah cOun-
ty is president of the association and
George Neuner, district attorney Of
Douglas county is secretary
Attorney General Brown also took
the opportunity to explain two de-
cisions which he handed down yester-
day relative to the cashing Of bank
drafts in payment for shipment of
liquor where the bill of lading or order
was attached and the other was in
reference to q merchant storing liquor
in his basement. According to the at
| torney general it is no crime to store
liquor in the basement but the fact
that large quantity is kept there Is
"prima facie" evidence that it is kept
for sale and the merchant may be
caused considerable trouble in explain
ing what he is keeping the liquor for
and it appears that explanations may
be demanded at any time and as often
as someone feels like it.
Speaking of the statute relative to
bank drafts Attorney General Brown
said in party.
"I am of the opinion that it is n
misdemeanor under the laws of this
state, from and after January |, 1915,
for any bank, or individual firm, or as
sociation to present and collect any
draft, bill of exchange, or order for
payment of money, to which is at
tached bill of lading, or order, or re-
ceipt for intoxicating liquor.
| Such collection is made misde-
meanor whether such sale of intoxicat-
| ing liquors is made in compliance with
the provisions of section l2 or other
wise.
Referring to this section and its pur-
pose, l will call your attention to the
fact That for some years, when intoxi-
eating liquor was shipped from wet
state to a dry state, they were shipped
| G. O. D., and the common carriers not
only carried the liquor, but collected
the purchase price for the same. In
order to prevent the railroad com
panies, express companies and other
common carriers that are transporting
Intoxicating liquors from wet territory
to dry territory and indirectly aiding
and abetting in the sale, congress en-
acted chapter 321, 35th statute 1136
Ittyh tdh N t,rtn In
transport intoxicating liquors of any
kind, from one state or territory into
any other state, territory, or district
from collecting the purchase price OF
any part thereof, before, on or after
the delivery from the consignee. A
fire of not more than $1,000 for 9
violation of the act is provided.
For the purpose of avoiding the pro
visions of this statute, Intoxicating
liquor was shipped by common ear
rier, and draft for the payment of tht
same together with the way bill, wa
forwarded to some association or banl
for the purpose of collection.
. In the district court of the Unitei
States for tne district of North Dakota
the First National Bank of Anamoose
was convicted and fined on account o.
collecting the purchase price on cast
of beer shipped from st. Paul.
One Myers, a resident in Anamooso
> N. D., ordered case of beer from ;
brewing company. The brewing com
ipany accepted the order and shipped
the beer to Myers at Anamoose vii
the Sioux Railway company, and re
ceived bill of lading from that com
pany under an agreement that the com
pany would not deliver the beer I,
Myers until he presented the bill o
I lading to its agent at AnamoOse. TIL
brewing company then attached a sigh
draft on Meyers for the purchase pric
of the beer, to the bill of lading, tn
bank agreeing with the vender to col
, lect the draft from Myers, and to de
liver the bill Of lading to him so as Il
enable him to receive the shipment o
beer from the railroad company an
thereby to complete the sale and deliv
, cry of the beer.
! The case was reviewed on appeal
, upon the contention that the facts o
, the case did not bring the bank, or it
) act within any of the classes of per
sons or acts of this statute subject t
fine for collecting the price of liquor
i, Circuit Judge Sanborn delivered tn
opinion of the court and reversed th
. holding Of the lower court upon tn
grounds that bank is not one of Ia
, persons prohibited from collecting tn
draft mentioned in said section 239.
believe that section II preventin
banks and associations from collectin
: the states prohibiting such traffic, ha
quor was enacted for the same reaso
that the congress of the United State
!. tpassed said section 239.
!, At the time the congressional con
mittee made report Of the congref
=, sional act, 1t said:
) 1.-THE principal cause Of difficu'
ty in restricting the liquor traffic /
!. the states phoribiting sucn traffic, ha
been the misuse Of the facilities fui
I nished by railroad companies, expires
companies and other common carrier
q in bringing in liquors from outsid
states TO be paid for on delivery. T
= meet thie evil, your committee repor
the substitute.
= For the same reason the Legislature
!. Of number of the states have enacte
/ lstatutes similar to section IA.