Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1917-08-21
ARGUMENTS In
BREWERY CASE
ARE CONTINUED
Geo. A. Bangs Completed
His Address This
Morning.
Fl. "A. Bronson Makes Clos
ing Speech on Behalf
of State.

Of State.
TO END TO-DAY.
Assistant Attorney General Dan
Y. Brennan began the closing
argument for the state at $3.50
O'Clock. and 1t was said that the
case would be finished this after
noon.
Judge Phil Mclaughlin made it
known that he would give his de-
cision in two or three days.
The intricacies Of the liquor laws Of
North Dakota, Minnesota and the
United States were discussed at length
this morning by Geo. A. Bangs,
sci for the defendants. and by Assist
ant Attorney General H. A. Bronson
In the preliminary hearing Of ]. II.
McInerny, the East Grand Forks
Phil Mclaughlin who is presiding
over the proceedings which have now
rachel the eleventh day stage.
Law Is Repealed, Says Bangs.
Mr.. Bangs continued his argument
from yesterday and said that the law
under which the conspiracy action is
was repealed by the enactment OF
the new law Of 1915. THE state"
Mr.. Bangs said. sis now in the I'M
fortunate situation where it charges
these defendants with an offense
which was covered by a law now re-
pealed.
by it's own witnesses, the state has
established conclusively that no con-
spiracy has existed. Mr.. and Mrs.
McInerny, the two principal defend
ants in the case. were in California
prior to the date Of the enactment Of
the law and until long after the al
legged offense was committed. The
state has shown nothing to prove that
Mr.. and Mrs. McInerny in any man
ner were communicating with the
East Grand Forks Brewery company
during that period.
What Is a Felony?
Now, talking about orders having
been telcphoned to the brewery for
beer. A telephone order takes the
place of a written one, and it was re-
ceiEcd IN a foreign state; the signed
order blank which was delivered to
the brewery subsequent to the regis
tering of the telephone order, was
merely a verification for the files Of
the establishment"
Mr.. Bangs at this point delved in
to labyrinth of technical and legal
paths and byways in connection with
the validity and legality of written
respect to the question of transport
ing beer from n place to another.
Suppose" counsel for the defend
ant said, that I have a case Of beer
standing in the basement of my house,
and that I, becoming thirsty, order
my servant to fetch me a bottle into
the library-is that a. felony? Or,
suppose further that I have the case
OF beer standing down in my office
and that I decide to have 1t brought
to my home by some one whom I
charge with that undertaking. Only
the fanaticism Of a Watkins or OF a
Finwall will be able to construe this
as a felony. The fac of the matter
is that the territorial geographical
situation Of the case is immaterial.
No Conspiracy Proven.
81 doubt very much. that your hon
or will be able to find on the basis of
the evidence here submitted that any
sale was ever made by the brewery.
The fact that draymen and taxi driv-
OAo ooA tAiC 1SSSllL 1dlI WEEK W.
tanned beer and sold it afterward Is
no proof that the brewery undertook
the sale; it is no proof that it was
guilty OF a conspiracy on or about
January 1. 1917.
The charge really is that a con-
spiracy-a criminal conspiracy-was
entered into in Grand Forks county,
the State Of North Dakota, at the time
when the two principal defendants
q n ~ tftaI ~ vryo~4 IT. xzrks
mony of Finwall shows c~onclusive1y
that his beer order was delivered in
Minnesota and hat the beer was OBJ
tanned in that state.
1T is astonishing-indeed, 1t is an
other strange feature Of this extraor-
binary case-that the Enforcement
league and the state officials have not
started proceedings against the three
blindpiggingers who have testified
here in court that they received quite
unusual quantities of beer during
short periods. Now. is this due to
courtesy? Or, is it the fact that the
state wanted to use these men and
their testimony as tools In their pro-
ceedtngs against those who have been
made defendants in the case. If not
why, then shield these actual Of
tenders?
The Brewery and the Agent.
1.-THE counsel for the state speak
about the intimate connection between
the East Grand Forks Brewery and
Mr.. McInerny. and they point to the
fact that certain checks were made
out to the brewing company and no,
to Mr.. McInerny. But they have
omitted to mention that these checks
were promptly turned over to MI. Nc.
Inerny who endorsed them in each In
stance.
THE state emphasizes the fact
that certain letters written by con.
tract holders were addressed to tht
brewing company. But the state hal
seemingly overlookedt the fact that al
answers to such letters were signed
by Mr.. McInerny.
They further make much OF ths
fact that cases. bottles, sacks. etc.
bear labels Of the brewing company
They have not told your honor tina,
the reason Is that the properties d