Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1922-10-09
DAUGHERrY's DRY RULING.

The ruling of Attorney General Daugherty de-
timing the application Of the prohibition amendment
and ensuing statutory legislation to seaborne traffic
will be followed, undoubtedly, by the filing Of suits
to obtain authoritative decisions on several Of the
points covered. In the meantime it will be accepted
Jas governing, especially in. cases involving the ac-
~tivities of the United States government itself.
One portion Of the ruling ought never to have
been necessary, namely, tl.at relating to the sale
|of liquor on ships belonging to the American gov
eminent. Under an, extremely. strained and tech
meal construction of the law there may possibly
have been some basis for the theory that the ships
lot the governments shipping board did not come
within its operation. AS an academic question that
might have some interest for the disputatious. But
the question never had any practical bearing, for
the sale of liquor on ships owned and operated by
the government OF a country which prohibited the
sale and transportation Of liquor at home was such
Il glazing violation of consistency and. decencyy that
the occasion for a legal opinion on the subject ought
never to have arisen. When the country went dry
the governments shipping ought to have gone dry,
instantly and automatically.
The plea OF Chairman Lasker, of the whipping
board that liquor must be sold on the governments
ships, otherwise they could not compete with for
Ieign ships where intoxicants were served as a mat
ter OF course, is on a par with the story-teller's ex-
PLANTATION of his statement that his dog, when
chased by a bear, had climbed a tree, in spite Of
the we'll known fact that dogs do not climb trees.
had to climb the tree, = was the explanation,
"or the bear would have got him" Our. chips had
Ito sell liquor or they could not compete, therefore
the ordinary rules Of consistent conduct must 70
by the board.
Aside from this phase. the Dauugherty ruling
brings up several interesting features. Apparently
its effect is to constitute the three mile limit an
impregnable wall around the United States and all
its possessions, not only against the importation Of
liquor, but against its transitory stay while in the
cargo Of a foreign vessel making a brief call. It is
based apparently, on a recent court decision pro-
|hibiting the use Of American transportation facili--
ties even for the carriage Of foreign liquors across
American territory in bond. # the law is correctly
interpreted in this case, it imposes needless and
vexatious restrictions on foreign commerc which
foreign peoples are quite likely to resent, and very
naturally. There is 1t ldest the implication that the
United States i attempting = sort Of censorship q,
Mr.. Daugherty'a ruling includes not only the
three mile strip OF water bordering the United
States proper, but the like strip around each 81
bur insular possessions. II IS understood that the
prohibition law does not apply to those possessions,
but If it does extend to TIE thtec-mnils strip around
we have the curious situation that though tho
people Of the Philippines, for instance, may legally
manufacture transpprt. buy, sell and use liquors,
they may not import or export Il, and no ship hav-
Ing II on board may pass within. three miles 81
their coasts