Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1919-07-21
DRY REGIME RAISES
PROPERTY QUESTION
Seems Certain That Radicals Will
Prohibit Possession of
Private Stocks.
SUPREME COURT MUST RULE
Georgia Tribunal Already Has
Decided Against Spirits Bought
Prior to Anti-Liquor Statute.
SUPREME COURT MUST RULE
BY j. FRED EssARY.

'-N"iii.>b Io-N, July 2O.-Wheth n
the radical drys succeed in the end in
barring the individual citizen from
possession Of private stocks of liquor
or IN limiting the amount which such
a citizen may possess. II seems GER
tam that the issue of property rights
Will be raised in some definite form
and that the Supreme Court OF the
United States will have the final vote
upon the question:
In most congressional circles the
view has been taken that the owner
ship OF legally acquired liquor-that
is, liquor bought and paid for prior
TO July !. held in the personal posses
sion of the owner-could not be legis-
lated against. House and Senate law
yers for the most part have seemed
10 agree upon this point. Even the
Anti-Saloon League counsel Wayne B.
Wheeler, in statement regarding the
enforcement code" which his organi-
zaiion is backing. said:
IL does not prevent the possession
o 9n insoxicatin liquor in q private
before the law goes into effect. 1t
does not' permit a search warrant to
be issued for such liquor in a private
dwelling"
Define" Leagues Position.
Mr.. Wheeler does not discuss the
pewer OF Congress to bar the owner
snip OF private stocks. He does not
say whether he believes that body has
a,,d authority to eonhscate property for
merely says that the Anti-Saloon
League is not seeking to confscate
or to search and seize in the name of
the government
BY singular circumstance II is
the Association Opposed to National
Prohibition which comes forward with
court decisions to show that Congress
may prohibit the owner OF a quart OF
red Ticker" from possessing that pro-
duct. If that body desires to do So
No Federal prohibition case has been
acted upon, this association shows.
but ii cites experience of States which
nave made the possession OF spirits
unlawful and the opinion of the high
est courts as 10 the constitutionaiity
OF such laws.
in the courts the trend Of litiga-
men aFia;sS eaA ri SA M 81
the same directions tho association
says, that is. towards r defnitlen
OF property as It relates to the clause
citizen shall be deprived of his pro-
perty without due process OF law
Already the United States, courts have
the case OF tho brewers as 10 their
rights to manufacture beer contain
ing not more than 2.75 per cent OF
tors in American breweries are threat
ening to bring action to recover dam
ages to their property here BY. pro-
In the courts. Congress is proceeding
with an enforcement measure In which
some OF the dry members threaten to
incorporate a denial of the right of
a citizen to store alcoholic beverages
in HIS private home
Latr Make. II Felony.
Under the Michigan prohibition law.
1t Is a felony to have in ones posses
sion Intoxicating beverages. There is
State. But in disposing of proceed
the Georgia State prohibition enact
held. on april II of this year. that
possession Of intoxicating liquors in
excess Of the amount permitted by
quired before its enactment, is pro-
hibited under the law.
The decision was rendered in appeals
drew B. Barbour. charged with having
more than one gallon of wine. the
amount permitted by law. in his pos
that the wine was purchased prior to
the enactment Of the law. the Supreme
Court Of Georgia declared that neither,
session Would be permitted to hinder
the operation of laws enacted for the
public welfare.
On the same day that the United
cision of the Georgia court, II handed
down. ruling that person can take
Intoxicating beverages through dry
State IL that PERSONS ultimate desti-
nation Is point beyond the dry State,
indicating that a measure of recogni-
tion OF property rights is given by the
courts TO even contraband article
while in transit.
New York Court Rules.
1t is pointed out by the wet leaders,
however. that a ruling totally con-
trary TO that in the Georgia case was
delivered by the Supreme Court of
New York state, when 1t declared that
such property as alcoholic beverages
prohibitory law went into effect must
be protected just as much under the
State and Federal Constitution after
the law had become effective as 1t had
been up to the enforcement of that
statute.
The New York law which called
forth this ruling was very drastic in
it's provisions. rigid forfeiture sec
ton was included. Another clause
said: "All liquor Kept In violation Of
any provision OF this act shall be
deemed. and is hereby declared pub
lie nuisance" Five out Of the six
justices held that alcoholic beverages
are not, of themselves, a public nuis-
ance and are incapable OF becoming
such until they have been drunk to
excess. and therefore must be pro-
tected as lawful property.
----~--