The New York herald. [volume] (New York, N.Y.) 1920-1924, 1920-11-09
Supreme Court Rules in
Case of Street VS.. Lincoln
Safe Deposit Company.
CONFISCATI0N HALTED
PrOviS0 Included That Pur-
chase Was Made Before
VOlstead Act.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Speculation Aroused as to Eff
feet on Bonded Supply and
Warehouse Receipts.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
sDecia, Despatch to THE NEW York HERALD.
New York Herald Bureau,
Washington, ID. c., Nov. y.

Special Despatch TO THE NEW YORK HERALD.
New York Herald Bureau
Washington, ID. c., Nov. 3.
Liquor lawfully acquired for per-
sonal use is immune from seizure by
Federal prohibition agents, even
though it is stored some place outside
the home of the owner. The United
States Supreme Court held so to-day
in a suit appealed from New York
Federal courts.
The decision does not affect the con-
stitutionality Of the Volstead act in
any way. 1t disagrees with the Inter
nal Revenue Bureaus Interpretation of
he act, but the fact that the court
held that liquor to be immune from
seizure must be lawfully acquired.
which means that it must have been
acquired before the passage of the
Volstead act and the fact that the
liquor must be for personal use showed
that the decision will create no great
breach in prohibition enforcement.
Intent of Congress.
The decision was made in the case of
William @. Street against the Lincoln
safe Deposit Company. Mr.. street had
liquor stored in one OF the company's
vaults and sued to stop revenue agents
from seizing IT, Revenue agents threat
oned TO do so If he took 1t from the
vault to his home on the ground that 1t
was being transported. Lower courts
ruled against AR. Street.
The Supreme Court held to-day that
IL was not the intent of Congress to pro-
vide for seizure OF liquor lawfully ac-
uuired and that the taking OF the liquor
from the vault to Mr. Streets home
would not be transportation within the
meaning Of the Volstead act. Justice
Clarke read ehis decision. which was the
one concurrcd in by majority of the
court.
Associate Justice McReynolds, while
agreeing in the result of the decision,
disagreed with the reasoning by which
the result was reached. He held that
Congress did intend that the Volstead
act should make unlawful storage Of
liauor outside the home and its later
transportation to the home. and declared
the Volstead law in that respect was
unconstitutional.
N1llt OlIlCluiS anu 4shNJNlS hNSiNoeSN
TO give an osfhand opinion 81 the results
of the courts decision, they failed to see
where they would be very far reaching.
Eject Of the Decision.
They agreed that the decision would
allow a man moving from one home TO
another to move his stores of liquor un-
less the transportation involved inter-
state commerce. In that case they were
not sure that the decision would prevail.
1t was declared unlikely that the de-
cision would affect any quantity of liquor
in bonded warehouses. because TO be
moved II would be necessary for II to
have been purchased and declared prior
TO the passage OF the volstead act.
A great deal of speculation was in
dulged in tonight in regard to the length
which the courts decision may he re-
garded as having gone. Among other
things. the question was brought up
whether liquors may be removed from a
bonded warehouse where the owner of
warehouse certificates acquired them
prior TO enactment OF tho volstead act,
and the opinion was generally expressed
by lawyers that the court. in effect. ruled
that such spirits could be moved where
il could be shown that IL was intended
for private consumption. This oonstruc-
tion was placed on tho courts ruling de-
spite the fact that the question of liquor
= IN bonded warehouses was not discussed
in any way by the court, nor was II In
volved in any way in the case which was
decided.
Test OF Transportation Needed.
Another interesting question was
whether a person holding warehouse
certificates could Withdraw his liquor
and transport Il in interstate commerce
Under the ruling of the court. Some
lawyers held the court had so ruled. but
others held the court had not decided
this question, and that II would be nee
essary 20 have another test case 10 de-
eide Il.
For instance if a man In New York
holds warehouse certificates for ten gall
Ions OF whiskey which Is held In Ken
tucky warehouse can he transport the
liquor 10 New York IL he can show that
the certificates were acquired prior 20
the passage OF the volstead act. and II
he can show that the whiskey Is intend
ed for private consumption
The Reed law. which made IL illegal
60 transport intoxicating beverages into
"a state which was dry by Its own act.
is expected 10 interfere In cases where
men may attempt to transport liquor,
under the terms OF to-days rulings. into
states which were dry before the whole
nation went dry. However. the Reed
law would not interfere here, since New
York state did not go dry until national
prohibition was enacted.
As 60 Bonded Liquor.
Legal authorities held different opin-
ions tonight as to the effect the rul-
ina of the court would have on liquor
Low held IN bonded and certified ware
houses While some were OF the opn
,cil that possibly as much as 80 per cent.
Continued on Third Page.
"Our Help Wanted Ad. In The New York