Daily Kennebec journal., 1922-01-31
court FORBIDS
PERSONAL USE
BONDED BOOZE
To Wholesale Drug
gists Only, for Pur-
poses Not Prohibited
Supreme Court Ruling Reverses
Previous One Permitting
Withdrawals from Private
Warehouses for Use in FAM
lily or for Guests

Washington, Jan. 3o--IntoAicating
liquors, stored in government bond
ed warehouses cannot be withdrawn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 dissented to by Justice
McRcynolds. Such liquor can only
be transported from the bonded
warehouses, Justice Mckenna stated.
''to wholesale druggist for sale TO
him for purposes not prohibited"
The court in u pervious decision
held that owners could withdraw
liquor for their own consumption or
for the use of their family or their
bonatide guests. Today's ruling
marks a wide distinction between
private and bonded warehouses.
Justice McKenna on this point said
thaS mere ownership was not equi-
valent" to possession and declared
that under the Nolstead law, there
must be ownership and possession in
ones private dwelling and that char
acter cannot be assigned 10 the
bonded warehouses of the govern
ment" The cases before the court
did not, he said have the effect of
dcpriving those who held warehouse
certificates of the property without
dino nf Iu 1i1
he added, to the taking of private
property for public purposes with
out just compensation.
Referring to the contention that
the prohibition amendment and the
Nolstead act, if applied to liquor
manufactured and lawfully acquired
before the amendment and the law
become effective would be void, as
taking from property. its essential
attributessof the right to use. possess
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 that part of the law
which permits one to use lawfully
obtained liquors in his home, Justice
McKenna asserted this right cannot
be construed to extend ito liquors
not SO situated. or to put it more
pointedly an intention to make all
bonded warehouses of the country
out-buildings OF its own dwellings,"
Declaring he had been in disagree
ment with the previous decision of
the court in holding that liquor in
private warehouses could he lawfully
moved by owners to their residences
for consumption. Justice McRcy-
noldS asserted that if the doctrine
laid down by the court in that case
was good. it would permit owners to
withdraw liquor from bonded ware
houses and he urged that unless the
court. took that view it should
frankly" withdraw it's former de-
cision. In the present cases liquor
was entrusted to government ware
houses, as permitted by the statute.
he said, but the owner lis denied the
privilege of taking it home because
that warehouse is not contributory
w iiA' '"thihS, NV GAL ooJoiiNt ttitit-
to. nor an out building connected
herewith"
The decision grew out of con-
Solidation of four cases, al, brought
against internal revenue collectors
to compel them to permit the with
drawal of the liquors. Those brought
to Charles borlenia and George j.
Chic. came from St Louis. Walter
A. Eastes from Kansas City, Mo-,
and William II. Bryan from BaIti-
more. In each case the decision
was against the owner of the ware
house certificate. Cornelia pur-
chased spirits stored in bond in the
spring of 1917. prior to the ratifica-
ton of the 1Stl amendment: Bryan
bought his on October .. 1919, prior
to the effective date of the Volstead
act: Chic obtained his on February
IS. 1920. after the amendment and
the Eolstead act had become effect
ivc. tastes dates his ownership
from August "a, 1917.