The New York herald., 1922-10-24

And ten other cases.
These cases come up upon motions
by the defendants to dismiss the bills'
and by the plaintiffs for final DEGREES
upon the answers. The pleadings have
been so drawn on both sides as TO
raise the merits of the controversy
and it is not necessary to set them
forth in detail,
The facts are these: Since the en-
actment of the War Prohibition act IN
October, 1919. which was followed IN
January, 1920. by the Eighteenth
Amendment and the National Prohi-
bition act. il has been the continuous
custom of all transatlantic passenger
steamships TO bring into the port OF
New York limited stocks of wines ana
liquors as part of their sea stores.
This was done with the consent or
the public authorities who promul-
gated regulations recognizing the
practice. but providing that, while
within the territorial waters OF the
United States, they should remain IN
tact under seal. The theory on which
the authorities proceC ded, acting on an
opinion at that time given by the At
torney General was that, as part OF
the ships stores, these wines ana
liquors. if sealed and kept on board.
NGlE iQl " pt ktSdidtN eAS ~ AONS''N
within the country at all. or as sub
1ect TO its municipal law, in accord
ance with the general rule that as
respects what happens upon the deck
of a foreign ship, the municipal law
Goes not apply except in cases where
the peace of the sovereign is at stake.
Later the permission so given was
further extended to allow the ships to
dispense to their crew their CUSTOM
ary ration of wine as was in some
cases required by the laws of the
country from which they came.
This being the posture of affairs, on
May Is. 1922. the Supreme Court de-
cioed in the cases of Grogan VS..
Walker, and Anchor Line VS..
Aldridge that the bare transit of
liquors across the territory of the
United States was transportation
within the Eighteenth Amendment.
Thereafter the present Attorney-Gen-
eral after consideration, on October
g. 1922. rendered an opinion to the
Secretary of the Treasury that these
decisions covered passenger steamers
plying in and out of the ports of this
country. The President thereupon
publicly announced that after a given
date he should proceed to execute the
law in accordance with this opinion.
and this created the situation out OF
which these bills arise.
The practice of all steamers has
been freely to sell wines and liquors
out of these stocks to their passen-
gers on eastbound voyages when once
outside the league limit. and to re-
plenish them in Europe so that they
should suffice for round trip. The
stocks in question are therefore car
ried into port, kept there under seal.
and carried out again. only for.the
entertainment of passengers embark
. ing from the United States.
Besidesthe wines ard liquors so used
the steamers carry q stock for the use
of their crews. In the case of the
French, Italian and Belgian ships the
law os their flag requires them to sup
ply ration of wine and in those cases
it is possible that the ships may not be
able to obtain clearance unless they
comply with this provision. Further
more, the use of wines, beers or liquors
among the peoples except Americans
from whom the crews of all the ships
are drawn. Is habitual and these
beverages are regarded as a necessary
part of their ration.
Among the plaIntlffs are. two lines
which sail under the American flag.
These the authorities have, always
treated like the foreign lines they
have freely sold their wines and liq-
uors at sea and brought them into
port under the same restrictions and
with the same privileges as the rest.
They are now, however. subject to the
same proposed action BY the defend
ants. Avts -
The defendants are. not the same in
all the suits. In some cases the Sec
% 10 V-raa {u inirad N
some the United States Attorney for
the Southern District of New York.
and in some the zone officer, but the
Collector of the Port of New York and
the local Prohibition Director are de-
PENDANTS in all.
Appearances
Hon. VAN VEcHTEN VEEpER, for
Oceanic Steam Navigation Company,
Ltd; Liverpool, Brazil & River
Plate Steam Navigation Company.
Ltd United Steamship Company
OF Copenhagen. the Royal Mail
Steam Packet Company. the Meth
erlands American Steamship Com
pany (Holland- America Line) and
Pacific Steam Navigation Company,
Luc1us II. BEERS, ESQ, for the Cunard
Steamship Company, Ltd, and An
chor Line Henderson Brothers).
JOSEPH p. NOLAN. ESQ. for Com
pagnie Generate Transatlantique.
REID l.. CARR, Esq, for United Ameri-
can Lines. ct al.
CLEArvs HEATING, Esq. and JOHN NJ.
WooLsEY. Esq, for International
Mercantile Marine and International
Navigation Company Ltd.
WILLIAM HAYWARD, Esq, United
States Attorney, and JOHN HoLLEY
CLARK, Esq. Assistant United States
Attorney, for defendants in all cases.
Learned Hand, ID. j. 1t Is con-
ceded. and indeed could not be dis
puted, after Grogan VS.. Walker and
Anchor Line VS.. Aldridge. decided
May Is, 1922. that. had the liquors
here in question been part OF the
ships cargo. the bills would not lie.
1t makes no difference that they were
not to be broached while carried with
in territory of the United States the
carriage would be transportation none
the less. But because they are part OF
the ships stores. in the sense that that
term is generally understood. the
plaintiffs argue that they do not fall
within the same rule.
This argument rests upon two
alternative premises. first. that trans
portation" involves a place where. and
a person TO whom. the goods are TO he
delivered, and second. that a ships
stores have by long custom been
treated as a part OF the furniture"
Brough vs. whitmore. Term. r, zoe.
or "appurtenances," The Dundee, I
Hagg. Adm. 109. OF the ship. whicli
do not without particular mention be-
come subject 20 tho municipal law OF
the ports into which she enters, any
more than the ship herself
Even IL transportation" were de-
fined to involve some delivery do
not see how that would help the plain