The New York herald., 1922-10-10
"Inconsistency Evident"

'Inconsistency Evident"
Prohibiting liquor from American yes
sells is inconsistent with Congressional
exemption OF the Volstead laws applica-
ton to the Canal Zone, said Ira IL.
Campbell, counsel for the American
Steamship Owners Association.
The Volstead law is either unconstitu-
tional or the ruling of Attorney General
Daugherty IS illegal. said Mr.. Campbell.
inasmuch as Congress has no authority
TO limit the intent OF the prohibition con-
tanned i'm the Eighteenth Amendment, so
so that il the intent Of the amendment
was. as claimed by Attorney General
Daugherty, TO make prohibition apple
able wherever the flag flies"
THE ruling of the Attorney eneral
directly controverts that provision of the
Volstead law which exempts the Canal
Zone from jurisdiction of the Volstead
law" said Mr.. Campbell 1.-The incon-
sistency of Mr.. Daugherty's ruling Is
evident. II the amendment is not broad
enough TO include the Canal Zone in pro-
hibition then the present reinforcement
laws are not broad enough to include
ships which are outside the territory OF
the United States.
In the earlier national prohibition
cases the Supreme Court expressly held
tEat Congress had power to pass only
eniorcible legislation. Ii could not de-
ieat or thwart the prohibition. If il were
the intention that the Eighteenth Amend
ment should be as broad as the Thir-
teenth Amendment and apply to any ter
ritory without the limits of the United
States whether on land or ships. Con-
gress could not pass any valid enforce
ment legislation which would exempt any
territory whatsoever subject to the juris-
diction OF the United States from the
application of the Eighteenth Amend
ment. And yet Congress, in the Vol
stead act. expressly exempted territory
over which the American flag flies out
side the territory limits OF the United
States-the Canal Zone.
''What WflI he Enect.o
"The Attorney General says: I be-
iicve from n study of the history OF
conditions out Of which the Eighteenth
Amendment grew ii is equally clear that
the words Territory subject to the juris-
diction" Of the United States, carry the
intent to carry its provisions over every
spot where the flag of America flies
And yet In discussing transportation
by foreign ships he says. in reference to
transportation throughout the Canal
Zone: When Congress was ready to
permit such transit for special reasons
in the Canal Zone il permitted il in ex-
press words
THE Attorney General must have be-
lieved, when he wrote those words, that
Congress did not intend that the Eigh-
teenth Amendment should apply TO the
Canal Zone and he seems to hold that II
is not applicable. II the amendment
does not apply to the Canal Zone it does
ritorial limits OF the United States and
the American flag flies outside the ter
ritorial limits Of the United States, and
II Congress has power TO exempt the
Canal Zone, how can the Attorney Gen
eral say that II does apply to ships out
side the territorial limits, but not Ia
other territory? How can such con.
struction be squared with the ruling OF
thetsupreme Court that Congress could
not thwart the amendment?
''The fact Is that you cannot reconcile
the provision In the Volstcad act per-
mitting transit through the Canal Zone
over which the American flag flies, with
any intent on the part OF Congress that
the Eighteenth Amendment should apply
without the territorial limits of the
United States.
What will be the effect? An Amer
lean ship cannot transport liquor from
a Cuban port to a west coast, South
American port, through the Canal Zone
in due course of trade-whereas the
ships Of foreign nations can.
Logic forces the conclusion that II
the Canal Zone Is not within the prohi-
bition. neither are American ships on the
high seas. The Volstead act, by sec
tion 1891 OF the revised statutes. Is only
applicable within the territorial limits
of the United States. for it contains no
provision which would make 1t more ex-
tensive."