Arizona republican., 1922-01-31
OWNER MUST
NOT REMOVE
LIQUOR FROM.
WAREHOUSES;
Supreme Court Rules Pri-
vate Liquor Stock Can
Only Be Withdrawn
For Wholesale Druggists
IRepubIIcan A. p. Leased Wlre1

LRepubilcan A. p. Leased Wire1
WASHINGTON, Jan. 30-Intbxi-
eating liquors. stored in government
bonded warehouses can not be with
drawn by the owners for their per
sonal use. the supreme court today
held In a decision delivered by jus
tice McKenna, and dissented to by
Justice McReynolds. Such liquor Dan
only be transported from the bonded
warehouses. Justice McKenna stated
to a wholesale druggist for sale to
him for purposes not prohibited
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. Today's ruling marks a wide
distinction between private and
bonded warehouses,
Justice .McKenna said, Mere own
ership was not equivalent" to possess
sion and delcared that under the Vol
stead law. there must be ownership
and possession in ones private.
dwelling, andNthat character can not
be assigned to the bonded ware
houses of the government" -.
cases did not, he said, have the effect
OF depriving those who held ware
house 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 compensation.
Referring to the contention that
the prohibition amendment and the
Volstead act, If applied to liquor,
manufactured and lawfully acquired
before the amedmet ad the law be-
came effective. would be void as TAX
ing from property it's essential attri-
butes of their right to use it. possess
it and enjoy it, Justice McKenna
stated that the court was mot dis
posed to trace the elements of the
contentious minutely'' as they were
all answered by the former decision
of the court in the national prohibi-
tion cases.
Referring to that part OF the law
which permits one to use lawfully
obtained liquor in his home, Justice
McKenna asserted this right can not
be construed to extend ito liquors not
so situated, or to put It more point
edly, an intention to make all bonded
warehouse outbuildings of its dwell
ings"
Declaring that he had been in dis
agreement with the previous decision
that liquor in private warehouses
could be lawfully moved by owners
to their residences for consumption
Justice McReynolds asserted that IL
the doctrine laid down by the court
in that case was good, 1t would per-
nit owners to withdraw liquor from
bonded warehouses and he urged
that unless the court took that view
it should frankly" withdraw its |
former decision. In the present cases.
liquor was intrusted to government !
warehouses as permitted by the stat
ute, he said. but the owner "is denied
the privilege of taking it home be-
cause that warehouse is not contrib !
utory to his dwelling, nor an adjunct |
thereto, nor an outbuilding connected |
If those bringing the present cases
''had only suspected the remarkable |
power OF the Forty second street |
(priyate) warehouse to attach itself |
to the dwellings, of all patrons. with |
out regard to distance he continued, |
referring to the private warehouse |
in volved in the former decision hold |
ing liquor could be transported, they |
might have chosen safer course"
He pointed out that the liquor was |
stored where the statute said it might |
be stored and added that. now the
court announced there "is
no analogy" between the lonely
barrels, casks and cases which within |
more favored walls await the pleas
lre of the owner" in the private
case.
The decision grew out of con-
of four cases. all brought
against internal revenue collectors
70 compel them to permit withdrawal
of the liquor. Those brought by
Charles Cornell and George ]. Chic
,ame from st. Louis; Walter A. Estes
rom Kansas City, Mo-, and William
Il. Bryan, from Baltimore. In each
(Continued on page 2l