The New York herald., 1922-10-07

shipping Board, who held that it was
legal This opinion was rendered be-
Tore Justice Holmes handed down his
decision IN the Walker and Anchor Line
cases. and 1t was largely upon this de-
cision that the Attorney General based
his opinion.
Mr.. Daugherty's summary.
II am Of the opinion" SAYS the At
terney-General at the close OF aselab-
crate analysis, that under the rules
of fair intendment American ships.
wherever they may be. are Included
in the terms OF the Eightsenth Amend
ment. territory subjsc. 20 The Jurisdic-
ton of the United States. 50 that
manufacture, transportation or sale OF
Intoxicating liquors tOr beverage pur-
poses is prohibited thereon To construe
otherwise would. in MY opinion. violate
the unmistakable intent in its adoption,
such intent clearly adduced from O
study of the circuo lnces OUT OF which
II grew, and voi4eI by the supreme
Court in the Walker and Anchor Line
cases.
This Interpretation is further sup
ported by the many authorities that
have held ships TO be constructive ter
iitory' of the country whose flag they
fly. Such decisions undoubtedly extend
the protection as well as the inhbitions
OF the country's laws
''The national prohibition act is an
act of general jurisdiction in force
wherever the Eighteenth Amenoment
applies; and the courts of the United
States have jurisdiction TO punish its
violations on the high seas.
Il am forced to the opinion, under
the ruling OF the Walker and Anchor
Line decisions that foreign ships carry
ing intoxicating beverage liquors as ship
stores or otherwise, within the three
mile limit of our shores, are violating
the provisions OF the national prohibi-
ton act. prohibiting possession or trans
portation of Intoxicating liquor for
beverage purposes. The Supreme Court
therein has held that it is not material
that the liquors may not be intended for
beverage uses within the United States
because the court emphasized that the
Eighteenth Amendment marks revo-
luton in our former national policy
toward Intoxicating liquor, and does not
confine it's prohib- tion in any metlculous
way within the United States, but on
the contrary its intent was as far as
possible to stop the whole business
Rulings Asked by Mellon.
The original request of Secretary
Mellon was dated June %, 1922 with
it was inclosed an opinion of the general
counsel of the Shipping Board, holding
that the Eighteenth Amendment does
not apply to American ships on the hlsh
seas" and stated that in conformity
with said opinion liquor is furnished for
beverage purpose on Shipping Board
vessels outside the territorial waters oil
the United States.
Secretary Mellon suggested recon-
sideration of the rulings of the Depart
ment of Justice, particularly the
opinion of November 1, 1920 requesting
advice from the Department whether
the practice of selling liquors on Amerl-
can ships outside the territorial waters
of the United States was permissible
under the law.
Secretary Mellon also asked TO be
advised whether under the Department
of Justices Interpretation of the law
and the decisions in Grogan VS.. walker
and Anchor Line VS.. Aldridge gases de-
cided by the United States Supreme
Court Nav To- 1922, the sale, transporta.
ton or possession of intoxicating liquor
for beverage purposes on foreign yes
sells while in American waters was pro-
hibited.
Attorney-General Daugherty replies
TO the first question in the negative and
TO the second question in the affirma-
tive. thus bringing to conclusion
controversy which has agitated the
country for many months and which
involves questions of the utmost inn
portance. both with respect to the pro
hibition statutes and American foreign
commerce.
The Attorney General holds xith re-
spect to the first question that the
fundamental consideration upon which
that query rests is whether United
States ships while on the high seas fall
under the legal Interpretation of the
phrase 1.-The United States and oil ter
ritory subject to the jurisdiction
thereof"