The Fargo forum and daily republican., 1917-07-09
Carrying Whiskey Upon
Person One State to An
other Interstate
Commerce
CITES HIPOLITE
EGG COMPANY CASE;
Would Open Channel to
Bootleggers if Permit
ted, Says Court


from one. state to another, not
intended for sale but for person
al consumption, is interstate
commerce and constitutes a vio-
lation of the Reed amendment,
prohibiting shipment of liquor
into any territory where its
manufacture or sale is prohibit
ed, according to a decision hand
ed down by Judge Charles F.
Amidon In federal court this
morning.
Pioneer Cases in Union.
The cases were those of the
United States against Andrew
Haugen and John Tjorn, two
laborers from the lumber woods
of northern Minnesota who had
each purchased a quart of whis
key in Moorhead and carried it
upon their persons across the
state line to Fargo. They were
the pioneer cases of the kind in
the Union, the decision affecting
twenty-three states which are
now bone dry under the Reed
amendment. The court ruled that
these facts brought the case
within the act of March 3, 1917,
commonly known as the bone
dry law.
ls Interstate Eommeroe
Judge Anidon ruled III, that the
simple act of bringing Intoxicating
liquors from one state to another is
interstate commerce, and that no
hold otherwise would make possible
the worst form of traffic in intoxicat-
ing liquors; namely, open the chan
nels to bootIegging. The court ruled
that il were to be held that carrying
a quart of whisky was not a viola
tion of the law, it would result that
the next defendant would bring in a
suitcase full in his hands, and the
next one would proceed to use a
wagon or an automobile, and the
worst possible introduction of in
toxicating liquors would thus be
sanctioned.
Secondly, the court held that the
quantity was immaterial; that the
bringing in of a bottle of liquor in
the pocket across the state lines is
a violation of the law the same as
shipping a carload over a common
carrier. Both constitute interstate
commerce, and if the liquor is
brought into prohibition territory
the statute is violated.
Law Says Nothing About Purpose.
81 f,.v v-1F1no that
1t is immaterial that the liquor is
not transported for the purposes of
sale, holding that the law says
nothing about the purpose of the
person who causes the liquor to be
transported into, prohibition terri
tory, and the courts cannot make
such purpose the basis of a sound
distinction.
The court held that the supreme
court in constituting the pure food
and drug act, in the case of Hipo-
lite Eggs company VS.. United States,
220 u. S., 45, had declared the law
which must control in the enforce
ment OF the bone-dry statute. The
supreme court in that case held it
was the intent of congress to close
the channels Of Interstate commerce
against adulterated food products, to
make an adulterated food product
"ar outlaw upon the highways of
interstate commerce and that such
was the purpose of congress in the
bone-dry statute in regard to in
toxicating LIQUOR.
'sIt makes those liquors an outlaw
in the channels of interstate COM
merce If the end of the transporta-
tion is prohibition territory. said a
part Of the decision.
Defendants Plead Guilty.
The demurrer raised by Attorney |
Garfield Rustad of Moorhead, was
and the defendants then |
entered a plea of guilty. The judge
the offense to have been |
committed and imposed |
q hne of IS.
Il 10 not consider you two as seri-
Gus Offenders of this act" said the
court in imposing the fine. Il don't |
fhink that you knew about the law
ma in fact you have told me so.
You simply brought the liquor upon l
your person into Fargo from Moor
head for your own personal con-
a practice which has been
ia force for d number of years. This
recent act Of Congress makes 1t a
crime. It is the duty of the court to
Impose punishment and to vindicate
the act and apprize you and others
who might violate the provisions or
he act that intoxicating liquors cam
not be brought into North Dakota
any longer without violation of the
statute"
HiIdreths Prosecuted.
United States District Attorney M.
A. Hildreth prosecuted and maintain
al from the time that the act was
passed that to bring liquor into North
0alrota in person, auto, or areoplane
constituted a violation. He further
held that il persons were permitted to
- To some base and each bring into
the state a pint or a quart bottle Of
Iiouor that agencies would spring up
n prohibition territory which would
nave men travelling back and forth
the respective points. The
5ecision by Judge Amidon is a signal
.rictorv for the Interpretation placed
81 the law by the United States dis
-rict attorney. who declared from the
lime that is went into effect on july
Continued on Page Two. II