The daily banner. (Cambridge, Md.) 1897-2008, 1921-04-21
sues TO FORCE
LIQUOR RELEASE
William III. Bryan Begins Test Case
In L. 5. Court To Recover Private
Stock. DOdSon Refuses Permit.

A test case to force the prohibi-
| ton authorities to release whisky
! owned by individuals in the bonded
| warehouses before the Volstead' Act
| went into effect was started before
! Judge Rose in the United States
| Court yesterday, and it is said to in
| vOlVe an indefinite amount of lid uor
now withheld from release.
! The action which is said to be the
| fOrerunner of many more. was di-
| rected against Revenue Collector
| Miles and Prohibition Director bod
| son by William H. Bryan, a widely
| known resident Of Baltimore county.
! through Attorneys Julian S. Jones', J.
I Wallace Bryan and James T. O'Neil
| of this city and Elliott w. MAJOR,
former Attorney General and Cover
| nor of Missouri.
Purchased Before DrOuth
| The petitioner sets forth that he is
! the owner of barrel of whisky.
which he purchased on October 2,
1919 and which is now being held in
| the Government bonded warehouse
at Pikesville. Judge Rose is asked
to order the liquor turned over ito
the owner as soon as the case is
heard.
No matter what the decision, it is
expected that the case will be alp
pealed to the Supreme Court of the
United States. Somewhat similar
cases have already been instituted by
Ex-Governor Major of ST. Louis and
appeals have been taken to the
Supreme Court. The case filed in
the Baltimore Court yesterday is
RI CT,
previously instituted since the
whisky in question is said to have
been bought prior to the passage OF
the Volstead Act or the Eighteenth
Amendment for the personal con-
sumption of tn petitioner
Questions Dodson's Power
The bill of complaint recites that
Mr.. Bryan bought the whisky for
consumption and use in his dwelling
by himself, his family and bona fide
guests. 1t is further compliance
that on April 8, last, he applied to-
Prohibition Commissioner Dodson
for a permit to obtain delivery and
transport the barrel of liquor to his
home in Baltimore county, but Conn.,
missioner Dodson, without authority |
of law, refused to issue the neces!j
Sary PERMISSION. i
According. it is alleged Mr..
Bryan rendered to Collector Miles
the amount of the tax on the spirits |
and demanded that the official issue
Internal Revenue stamps showing1
the payment of the money and rel
lease the whisky, but the Collector
refused to comply with the demand. |.
The bill then goes on to recite that
the VOlstead Act contains no provls- /
ion requiring or authorizing the Col
lector and Commissioner to refuse
permit for the removal of liquor and
such removal for the petitioners
personal use is not forbidden by
either the Volstead Act or the Eigh-
teenth Amendment.
Raises Constitution Issue
Finally. it is contended that If the
Volstead Act could be constructed as
authorizing or justifying the Govern
ment officials in refusing to permit
the removal of the spirits to his resi-
dence for his personal use then so
much of the Volstead is .unconstltu-
tional and void for the reason that 1t
transcends the power granted Con-
gress by the Eighteenth Amendment
depriyes the plaintiff of his property
without due process of law and with
out Just compensation denies
him the equal protection of the Jaw
contrary to the Fifth Amend19e to
the Constitution of the United States.