The Washington herald., 1919-05-24
CANNOT SEIZE
LIQUOR under
BONE DRY LAW
No Provision for Con6sca-
ton in Reed Act,
Court Rules.
OWNERS GET WHISKY
Not Material Whether Vio-
lation Occurred, Judge
Gould Says.

Out Of the clouded liquor situation
today in Washington. comes a definite
decision from Justice Gould in the
District Supreme Court which clears
up At least one point as to its mean
ing.
The decision is this: There Is moth
ing whatever in the Reed amendment.
or the bone-dry law, which permits
the police department to seize liquor.
whether or not the person or persons
IN whose possession 1t Is found are
guilty Of violating the law.
Furthermore. the Shepperd law.
which contains a clause authorizing
seizure Of liquor In cases where con-
Victions are secured, cannot be read
into the Reed amendment, or vice
versa
The decision grew out Of a petition
for a writ of replevin fled by Glad
ding Brothers," a Baltimore trucking
concern. for the return of some S2,SU
worth of liquor which was seized from
their trucks by the police soon after
the Reed amendment went into effect.
The case Of Salvatore Scalos. a fruit
dealer. s2l Louisiana avenue north
west. who asked the return of s1l9.5o
worth Of whisky. was heard along
with the Gladding Brothers.
Liquor Ordered Returned.
In both cases the court ordered the
return OF the liquor. Thus the police
department is left without a leg to
stand on insofar as this sort of seiz-
lutely without authority to seize liquor
as contraband under the Reed amend
ment, the court ruled.
Attorney Levi II. David, counsel for
Scalco. won his case on different lines
than were followed in the Gladding
Brothers case. Scalco purchased
whisky from the Triaca Company. in
Baltimore. on February %. two days
before President Wilson signed the
revenue bill which carried as a rider
the Reed amendment applying to the
District.
Intsrstate commerce began. the
court ruled, as far a sthis shipment
was concerned on the I'D the day of
purchase. and the shipment did not
stop in transit until it was seized in
the District several hours after the
revenue bill was signed. Therefore,
81 III. liquor was already in transit
OF a uature that constituted inter-
state commerce before the signing
of the bill. the court ruled, it was
not liable to seizure at ALL
Z The Gladding brothers won their
case solely on the decision of JUS
ticc Gould that the Reed amend
ment contains no provision authoriz-
ing seizure by the police at any
stage of the proceedings.
ScaIco Case n Test.
The Scalo case was a test case.
inasmuch as Attorney Davis repre-
sents eleven Baltimore wholesale
whisky dealers who claim that the
$1,000 worth of liquor held at the
Ninth precinct should be returned to
them and their consignees as il was
unlawfully seized and is being un-
lawfully held by the police depart
ment.
Judge Mcmahon. who some time
ago decided the reverse of what
Judge Hardison was thought to
have decided. namely. that liquor
brought over in private machines
for personal use was not in violation
Of the law, again so decided yester-
day. This time his decision was in
the case of william Parker. charged
with bringing in lis half-pints in
his own automobile. Judge Nc
NIahon held Parker was engaged in
Interstate commerce.
Parker. through his attorney. Rob-
ert I. Miller. filed a prayer with Judge
Mcmahon to direct the jury to cring
IN a verdict of not guilty on the
ground that the whisky was for his
own personal use
Judge Mcmahon refused for the
same reason Judge Hardison refused
an identical request. on the ground
that the whisky being in half pint
bottles and in such large quantity.
left no doubt in the courts mind il
was intended for sale and. therefore,
came under the head OF interstate
commerce in violation of the Heed
amendment.
As yet no case has been heard in
Police Court which would determine
definitely whether or not the bringing
in of liquor for personal use Gf
proven) in privately-owned vehicles is
a violation OF the Reed amendment.