The Prince George's enquirer and southern Maryland advertiser., 1922-02-10
BONDED LIQUOR
RULING ISSUED
lntOxicants Stored in Federal
Warehouses Are Not for
Personal Use.
M'REYNOLDS FILES DISSENT
Ownership Does Not Make Liquor
Usabie-Not in Private Dwelling.
Owning Is One Thing and Pos
ing Is Something Else Again."

Washington. - Intoxicating liquors
houses cannot be withdrawn by the
owners for their own personal use, the
Supreme Court held in a decision de-
livered by Justice McKenna, and dis
sented to by Justice McReynolds. Such
liquor can only be transported from
the bonded warehouses, Justice Nc
Kenna stated, ''to a wholesale druggist
for sale to him for purposes not pro-
hibited."
The court in a previous decision
held that owners could withdraw from
private warehouses liquor for their
own consumption or for the use of their
family or their bona fide guests. To-
days ruling marks wide distinction
between private and bonded ware
houses.
Justice McKenna on this point said
that Mere ownrship was not equiva-
lent" to possession, and declared that
under the Volstead law, ''There must
be ownership and possession in ones
private dwelling, and that character
cannot be assigned to the bonded ware
houses of the government"
The cases before the court did not,
he said, have the effect of depriving
those who held warehouse certificates
of their property without due process
of law, nor did it amount, he added,
to the taking of private property for
public purposes without just compen-
sation.
Referring to the contention that the
prohibition amendment and the Vol
stead act, if applied to liquor manu-
factured and lawfully acquired before
the the amendment and the law be.
came effective, would be void, as TAX
ing from property it's essential attrib-
utes of the right to use it, possess it
and enjoy it. Justice McKenna stated
that the court was mot disposed to
trace the elements of the contention
minutely" as they were all answered
gy the former decision of the court
in the national prohibition cases.
Referring to that part of the law
which permits one to use lawfully
obtained liquor in his home, Justice
McKenna asserted this right cannot
be construed to extend ''to liquors not
so situated, or to put it more pointedly,
an intention to make all bonded ware
houses of the country out-buildings of
it's dwellings,"
Declaring he had been in disagree
ment with the previous decision of the
court in holding that liquor in private
warehouses could be lawfully moved
by owners to their residences for con-
sumption, Justice McReynolds asserted
that if the doctrine laid down by the
court in that case was good, it would
permit owners to withdraw liquor from
bonded warehouses, and he urged that
unless the court took that view it
should frankly" withdraw it's former
decision. In the present cases liquor
was entrusted to government ware
houses as permitted by the statute, he
said, but the owner sis denied the priv
ilege of taking it home because that
warehouse is not contributory to his
dwelling, nor an adjunct thereto, nor
an out-building connected Herewith" :"
If those bringing the present cases
'had only suspected the remarkable
power of the Forty-secOnd street (pri-
vate) warehouse to attach itself to the
dwellings of all patrons, without re-
gard to distance" the justice con-
tinued, referring to the private ware
house involved in the former decision
holding liquor could be transported,
they might have chosen safer
course" He pointed out that the liq-
uor was stored where the statute said
it might be stored, and added that now
the Supreme Court announced there is
mo analogy" between the lonely" bar.
rels of whisky in the present cases and
the many BOTTLES, barrels, casks and
cases, which within more favored walls
await the pleasure of the owner" in
the private warehouse.