Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1922-10-24
.SH|POWNERS LOSE
IN FIGHT TO KEEP
THEIR LINES WET
Judge Hand Refuses In
Junction % f1sh Daugh-
erty Ruling.
GOVERNMENT WINS
IN LIQUOR TEST CASE
Court Gives Temporary Per.
nit for Drink for
Use Of Crews.
WET CRAFT MUST STAY OUT
All Vessels Transporting Liquor With
In Thrrr-Mnc Limit Violate
GOVERNMENT WINS
IN LIQUOR TEST CASE
WET CRAFT MUST STAY OUT
All vessels Trnnsportins Liquor With
In Thrrc-Mnc Limit Violate
Inv.
lBv Associated press-1

NEW YORK. oct. a3.-FederaI
Judge Learned Hand today handed
down decision dismlssing the mo-
ton Of foreign and American ship
companies for general Injunction
restraining Federal prohibition
agents from putting into effect the
oone-dry ruling of Attorney General
paugherty. He extended the stay
temporarily. however. providing that
the steamship companies file an i'm
mediate appeal TO the United States
Supreme Court
The temporary extension OF the stay
granted by Judge Hand. applies only
TO Liquor to be used as supplies for
members of ships crews on the cast
bound voyage to Europe. This ex-
tension was granted on the furnish
ing Of bond of $4,000 by the steam
ship companies to guarantee that the
liquor would not be used for any
other purposes than the one stipu-
lated
For Government on All Points.
Judge Hand decided in favor of the
government on all points. The de-
cision was rendered on the specific
matter OF the application OF foreign
lines for an injunction protecting
from seizure ships carrying liquor
under seal on the eastbound voyage
from the United States
The decision applies 10 both for
etgn and American lines because of
the statement, made by Judge Hand
during tho injunction proceedings
last week. that defeat OF the mo.
ton OF the foreign lines would natur-
ally bring about defeat of the Amcri-
can lines motion for an Injunction.
Judge Hand found that steamships.
in carrying liquor and serving II TO
passengers and members OF tho crew
were guilty of transportation, but he
said he would go no further than to
issue an Injunction against interfcr-
ing with the carriage OF stock
necessary for the crews rations on
the eas,bound voyage.
Must Give s25.GRO Bonds.
The plaintiffs must each give a
bond OF $4,000 conditional against
the use of such stocks for any other
purpose than as crews rations." he
added. dismissing all other motions
for injunctions.
ignoring for the moment the
crew" he said. "all OF the stocks
arc avowedly intended for the con-
sumption of persons who are now
within the United states. but a sub
StantiSi number OF these persons are
residents or citizens OF the United
states. the very persons who IL was
the whole purpose of the amendment
to prevent drinking liquors.
Naturally have nothing to saw
about the wisdom OF the amendment
or the law. but. wise or not. one
thing is clear that n drink OF whisky
Is as hurtful to health and morals
outside as inside Ambrose Light. II
appears to me inconceivahIc. when
one Is discussing the implied intent
OF congress. that n statute cast in
such sweeping terms should be read
as Indifferent to open preparations
within the United states for the
qualification by Its citizens of exactly
those appctites which it was the
arowed intent OF the statute alto
gcther to deny.
Makes Interesting Comparison.
Nor do | believe that any one
would hesitate to think SO who did
not already repudiate the whole re-
FORM. II. for example. We were to
substitute cocaine or opium for alco-
hol can scarcely think there
could he any dis!ntercstcd difference
Of opinion.
suppose it were the habit OF Chi
neS" vessels 10 bring 10. our ports
"'n""g th"i- stores "A proper supply
OF morphine and opium with the
4vow"i purpose OF dispensing IL
ir"ely to the passengers from the
United states as soon as they cleared
the icch! limit. Could IL be seriously
argued that constitutional amend
ment and statute In broad language
designed to prevent citizens from
using this drug did not cover so pal
pahie means of nullify!ng the very
purpose OF the law?
III Is indeed different with so much
OF the stocks as are kept for tn.
crew. and much stronger argument
can be made for the legality OF their
carriage. though these also seem to
me 10 fall within the decisions
have so often cited However. that
question is really irrelevant as these
cases are presented"
Delicate Matter q" Tie Hands.
Referring 10 his refusal TO grant
Continued on Page . Col, a.