New-York tribune., 1922-10-07

courts will enioin the Treaaurv De.
paTtment from enforcing prohibition
on foreign shipa until the cases can
pe 1risd before the Supreme Court
and final decision obtained from,
snas body. Dnring this persd Of wait
ships not hcing able to intsrnosa
legal delaying methods, will be dry
ana be forced 20 compete with wet
foreign ships.
~ the decision Of Mr. Daughersy il
rfnaly upheld by the Supreme Court,
and all ships. foreign or American. cr-
.eTing American ports, can have no
Hqucr aboard, then the American shius
w'ltasuffer in two ways. In the first
p.sce MANY passengers will use Cana
gan ports, Montreal FOR EaYeoe in
s,sAa. OF New York and Bostoa. and
vancouver for the Far East Instead ~
Seattle and Portland.
IN addition foreign ahips can fate
nooan small stores Of wines and
hqaor at fc~eign ports and can sell 10
Rassfngers wntle Ell route to she
united States. they could caleulate
sne amount TO be sold so that any snr
p'us whieh would have to be throw n
sovesooard OF entering the three-aaile
.;mft would be very slight. if indeed
enese were no marked dewn bargain
sI as..s sais Just before entering
AMesican territorial waters.
one shipping expert pointed ort to-
nsgnt that British vessels bound fr.n,
Sew oTk or Boston for any British
Or So?sh European ports could stop
as Haiafax both ways, thus being able
20 sell liquor on the outward trim dur
,ng most of the time This would nc.
DE much ont Of their way, he pointed
out, as most ships bound for Europe
irosn America stopped at Halifax dur,
ing the war, She idea then being prin-
c'paliy to form them into conveys As
a matter of fact, it is very little out
OK tie way.
I, Attorney Generals Opinion
am Of the opinion says the At
tcrney General, Chat under the rnles
oI sair 'intendment American saips.
Wherever they may be, are included
IN the terms of the Eighteenth Amend
ment, territory subject to the juris-
diction' OF tho United States. so that
manufacture. transportation or sale Of
intoxicating liquors. for beverage pur-
pesss IS prohibited thereon. TO con-
sTue otherwise would, in my opinion.
vtointe the unmistakable intent in II
adoption such intent clearly adduced
1som study OF tho circumstances out
Oh which it grew and voiced by the
sopgeme Court in the Walker and
anchor Lins cases.
This Interpretation is further sup
ported by the many authorities that
have held ships to be constructive ter-
aitory OF the country whose flag they
ny. snch decisions undoubtedly ex~
Cend the protection, as we'll as the
Inhibitions OF the eountry,s laws.
The national prohibition act is an
act of general jurisdiction in force
wherever the Eighteenth Amendment
aapplies,, and the courts of the United
States have jurisdiction to punish. its
violations on the high seas.
Il am forced to the opinion, under
the ruling OF the Walker and Anchor
Line decisions that foreign ships
carving intoxicating beverage LIQUORS
as ship stores or otherwise, within the
three mile limit of our shores are vic.
iatlng the provisions of the national
prohibition act, prohibiting possession
or transportation of Intoxicating liauor
ror beverage purposes. The Supreme
Court therein has held that it IS not
material that the liquors may mot be
1nesnded Tor beverage uses within the
Chied States. because the court en-
paa5iZed that the Eighteenth Amend
national policy toward intoxicating
liquor and does not confine it's pro
hiottion in any msticulous way within
the United States, but on the contrary
Its intent was so far as possible 10
stop the whole business
Consistency Demanded
"The Shipping Board has frequently
sought TO punish offenses committed
against its property on the hieh seas
by maintaining the applicability Of
general Grim ina} sfatutes II
would be inconsistent for American
vessels to enjoy the protection of laws
OF general jurisdiction and fail to be
governed by the prohibition of one of
similar jurisdiction"
1t is long established principle
OF municipal and international law"
says the Attorney General in discus
sing foreign ships in American ports,
that nation has right to make and
water as we'll as its land 80.
If then the bringing in of liquors
by foreign vessels as ship stores or
otherwise constitutes a TRANSFORMATION
Or possession contrary to tho Eish-
tesnth Amendment and the National
Prohibition Act, it ia clearly a violation
of the law that no executive or admin
stratve officer Of the government has
the power to permit.
ihe SonSt1tdtlon PROMPTS trans
portation which has been defined as
the taking up persons or property at
some point and putting them down at
another. That the innocence Of any
intent to put them down or use them
in the United States is not material In
determining whether the Transports
tion is violation of the law as de-
termined by the Walker and Anchor
Line cases, where the court decided
that Intoxicating liquor stored on one
British ship could not lawfully be re-
moved to another British ship in the
New York harbor, although it was ad-
mittedly destined for Sewerage use.
outside of the United States.
'Furthermore. the national prohibi-
tion act prohibits possession as we'll as
transportation of intoxicants for bey,
erage purposes irrespective of where
they are to be put to such beverage
use Under the reasoning of the court
IN the Walker and Anchor Line cases
IT is no argument for the legality OF
81 foreign ships possessing and trans,
porting intoxicating liquors in and
across our waters that they do not in.
- tend to. use the liquors until afte,
leaving the jurisdiction of the United
States,
Are We, then. to argue that such
lnfiexibie provisions of law. declared
oy our Supreme Court as the consti.
tutional policy of our law, shall apply
to our citizens, but be abandoned when
we deal with ships Of foreign ma
tion? To do SO would be a rrieyous