Norwich bulletin. [volume] (Norwich, Conn.) 1895-2011, 1922-01-31
Ruling on Liquor in
Bonded Warehouses
Cannot be Withdrawn by the
Owners for Personal Use
Supreme Court Decision.

washington, Jan. 3o-Iintoxicating
liquors, stored in government bonded
warehouses cannot be withdrawn by the
owners for their own personal use, the
supreme court today held in a decision
delivered by Justice McKenna, and dis
sented to by Justice McReynolds. Such
hquor can only be transported from She
bonded warehouses, Justica McpEenna
stated, to wholesale druggist for sale
to him for purposes not prohibited"
The court in a previous decision held
that owners could withdraw from pri-
vate warehouses liquor for their own
consumption or for the use of their
family or their bona ide guests To-
days ruling marks wide distinction be-
tween private and bonded warehouses.
Justice McKenna on this point said
that mere ownership was not to eouiva-
lent to possession and declared that,
under the Volstead law, there must be
ownership, and possession in ones pri-
vate dwelling, and that character can
not 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 pri-
vate property for public purposes with
out Just compensation.
Referring to that part Of the law
prohibition amendment and the Volstead
act, if applied to liquor manufac cture ed
and lawfully acquired efore the amend
ment and the law effective would be
void, as taking from property its essen
| tial attributes of the right to use It, pos
ses 1t and enjoy it, Justice McKenna
stated that the court was mot disposed
| to trace the elements of the contentious
minutely" as they were all answered by
the former decision of the court in the
national prohibition cases.
| Referring to othat part of the law
which permits one to use lawfully OBJ
tanned liquor in Ns home, Justice Nc
Kenna asserted this right cannot be con-
strued to extend ito liquors not so sit
uated or to put It more pointedly an in
| tention to make all bonded warehouses
| of the country out-buildings of It's
| dwellings"
Declaring he had been in disagreement
| with the previous decision of the court
in holding that liquor in private fare
l houses could be lawfully moved by own
| ers to their residences for consump-
tion, Justice McReynolds asserted that Il
the doctrine laid down the court ir
that case was bgood, It would permit
owners to withdraw liquor from bonded
warehouses and he urged that unless tn,
court took that view it should "fra nix
ly' withdraw its former decision. In tn,
present cases liquor was entrusted t
government warehouses as permitted b.
the statute, he said but the owner 81
denied the privilege Of taking 1t hom
because that warehouse is not contrib
utory to his dwelling. nor an ad;unc
thereto nor an outbuilding connecte
| herewith"
/ A-I.-
''held only suspected the remarkabi
power of the Forty Second street (privat
! warehouse) to attach itself to the dwell
ings of all patrons, without regard t
distance the Justice continued, refer
ring to the private warehouse involve
in the former decision holding liquor
| could be transported, they might hav
chosen a safer course" He pointe
out that the liquor was stored where tn
statute said it might be stored and ado
ed that now the supreme court announC
ed there is mo analogy" between ii
, lonely barrels of whiskey in the pres
9 ent cases and the many bottles, barrel
l casks and cases, which within more fl
vored walls await the pleasure Of II
. owner in the private warehouse.
I The decision grew out of a consol
dation of four cases, all brought again
=. internal revenue collectors to comp
! them to permit the withdrawal of Il
Il liquor. Those brought by Charles Co
nell and George J. Chic. came from
Louis. Walter A. Eastes from Kans;
:, City. Mo-, and William H. Bryan, fro
y Baltimore.
In each case the decision was again
, the owner Of the warehouse certificate
5 Cornell purchased stored in bond in t
spring Of 1917, prior to the ratifcatit
of the 18th amendment; Bryan bought (
II October 2, 1919. prior to the effecti
II date Of the volstead act Chic obtain
!: his on February 2s, 1920. after t
Il amendment and the Volstead act had b
come effective Eastes dates his owne
ship from August "a, 1914