Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1920-11-09
MAY MOVE LIQUOR
IF HELD LAWFULLY,
HIGH COURT RULES
Transfer Not Prohibited
by VOIstead Act, U. S.
Tribunal Holds.
MAY MEAN RELEASE OF TEN
MILLION GALLONS WHISKY
Whether Interpretation Applies
to Interstate Shipment
Not Clear.
MAY PAVE WAY FOR FRAUD
Enforcement Officials Fear Danger
of Increased Opportunity
for Violation.
MAY MEAN RELEASE OF TEN
MILLION GALLONS WHISKY
MAY PAVE WAY FOR FRAUD
Enforcement Officials Fear Danger
of Increased Opportunity
for Violation.
lny Associated rrcss

WASHINGTON. Nov. 3.-Storage ci
lawfully acquired liquor in CONNER
cial warehouses and tho transporta-
lion OF such stock to the home OF
The owner is not prohibited by the
Nolstead act, under a decision hand
- down today by the Supreme Court.
In passlng upon the appeal OF Will
liam G.. Street, of New York, from
decisions OF lower courts refusing to
cnjoin internal revenue officials from
scizinS liquors he had placed In 4
room rented from safe deposit com
nany, the Supreme Court reversed the
lower courts and held that the In
Junction should be granted.
The effect OF this ruling had not
been fully appraised tonight by In
ternal revenue and prohlbition-en-
| iorccmcnt officials. The belief was
. Expressed, however. that tho rcsui,
might be the release OF some 10000
600 gallons of intoxicating beverages
which have been stored in warehouses
since January 16, 1920.
Look for Test Cases.
i:ecords on nlc here show that In
addition to immense quantities OF
LIQUORS purchased and stored by In
diNidual consumers. there were In
storage when the Noistead ac, be-
came effective large stocks held by
hotels and restaurants as reserves.
Whether these latter stocks como
within today's ruling has not been
determined. II was anticipated that
est cascs would be dIed soon on this
and similar questions arising from the
Undetermined scope OF the new In
t"rpretation OF the Voistcad ac;.
Justice Clarke. who rendered the
opinion today. held that tho trans
porta;ion OF liquor from warehouse
storage TO tho owners home would
be legal, il the liquer had been law
fully acquired and for lawful pur-
pose. Eic said:
Nat transportation OF the liquors.
is not such as Is prohibited by
The section Ii too apparent to Justify
detailed consideration OF the many
provisions OF tho act inconsistent
With "a construction which would rem
Ter such removal unlawful. and that
he act is underatood by the officers
harSed with its execution as per-
hitting such transportation is shown
~ Tho provision OF the regulations
Il the bureau OF interna. revenue
,uthorizing permits for the transpor-
alton Of liaucr from one pcrmanen,
-esidcncc of an owner in the case
i his removal. although no such
ransfer is in terms provided for by
ne act"
Regulate Trnnsfer OF Liquor.
Tho opinion pointed out. however,
hat internal revenue authorities un-
ioubtedly had the illustrative
,ower to regulate the transfer Of such
Il luors so as to prevent their use in
iolation OF the law.
AN intention to conhscate private
property" the opinion concluded,
even in Intoxicating liquors. will not
&c raised by inference and construc-
ion from provisions of Law which
rave ample field for their operation
n effecting 4 purpose clearly indi-
ated and declared
Justice McReynolds, concurring in
he Judgment of the court. di.sente
IS to the reasoning by which it was
cached.
Il think the Volstead act was
properly interpreted by the courts
>elow." he said. but TO enforce IL
Is thus construed would result in
ritual confscation of lawfully ac-
iuired, liquors by preventing or un-
iuly interfering with their consump-
ion by the owner. The eighteenth
amendment gave no such power TO
Congress. Manufacture. sale and
transportation are the things pro-
,ibited--not personal use
Prohibition enforcement officials
,cgan studying the decision immcd;-
;cly after it was read. The opinion
vas frankly expressed that many
hangcs would havc to be made in
he enforcement regulations. but.
ending detailed study Of the case and
he circumstances surrounding the
litigation, no official statement was
orthcoming.
May Increase Fraud Danger.
One effect Of the decision foresecn
vas the danger OF increased oppor-
unity for fraud among persons seek
ns means of violating the law.
Without the check on transportation
rovided by the permit system. Of
cials indicated that they expected
reater difficulty in controlling un-
awful sales.
a conclusion had not been reached
might as to whether the courts in
Expectations open the way for unre-
ricted transportation In Interstate
,mmerce. That transfer can be made
thin r. State apparently was speci-
:, but tho language OF tho court.
hen analyzed, may yet show, Of
Ill.
ate transportation can By stopped.
the particular case Involved. 1t
az pointed out. the owners legal
,sidencc and tho place Of atoraga
tcppttnlsd on yepth PsGeil & S1s,