Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1922-07-31
MAKING THE SEA DRY.

The enactment of our prohibition laws has
brought UP = number Of knotty problems, none Of
them more perplexing than those relating to the
ocean transportation of intoxicants.
) The legal department of our government is just
now wrestling with the question whether or not the
transportation and sale OF liquor is permissible on
vessels sailing under the American flag on the high
seas, and particularly whether or not the ships op-
Grated by our shipping board may be permitted to
serve alcohol to their passengers. The general
theory has been that a ship flying the American flag
is American territory, wherever it happens to be,
and, as such, is subject to the laws of the country
equally with its land area. That theory is doubtless
subject to notifications, but as a matter of policy
if we prohibit the handling of liquor in our cities
and villages and on our farms, we cannot consistent
1y permit it on our ships, especially the ships which
are owned and operated by our government.
Foreign ships in our harbors are subject>to such
regulations as our government may prescribe but
SO long as the sale of liquor is legal in a foreign
country we cannot very we'll exclude from our ports
the ships of those countries if they happen to have
liquor on board. We may require that it be sealed
up during the stay of the vessel, but that seems to
be about the limit.
The fact that liquor is transported quite legally
by the ships of other countries on the, high seas un-
doubtedly tends to facilitate smuggling. A foreign
ship on the open sea can fguratively snap it's fingers
at Our officials. 1t is beyond their jurisdiction. But
it may come SO close to our coast that a swift launch
may slip out from a secluded cove, take on a valu-
able cargo, and slip back again before our guards
are aware of it's presence.
With delightful informality Senator Sterling
proposed to apply a remedy by passing a bill extend
ing the right OF search to a distance of eight miles
from shore instead of three, which is now the limit.
This proposal died a-bornin' but if it had passed
and an attempt had been made to enforce it, some
of our neighbors would presently have inquired by
what right the United States assumed jurisdiction
of five miles of water which custom, and law treaties
without number long since nternationalized We
might have been asked why, while we were about it,
we didn't assume jurisdiction clear to the middle of
the ocean, or to the other side, instead of merely a
few miles out. And we shouldn't have had any
answer.
1t has been proposed that the handling of liquor
on the open sea be outlawed by international agree
raent, much as the shipment of slaves was outlawed
years ago. The cases are somewhat parallel. The
United States was a party to the prohibition of
ocean slave traffic while slavery was still legal in
her own territory. 1t is not likely that nations
which legalize the manufacture and sale of liquor
will prohibit it's shipment, by sea or land. But it
may be possible to reach an agreement which will
place greater obstacles in the way of shipment to
countries where it is under the ban.