Evening star., 1923-05-13
COMPLICATIONS PILE UP
UNDER LIQUOR DECISION
Ruling of the Supreme Court, Literally
Interpreted, Would Even Cut Off
Diplomats Supplies.

porting liquor for beverage purposes?
Are you exporting liquor for beverage
purposes?"
To which the captain would answer.
in a tone heard from one end of the
ship to the other, "No"
The prohibition agent would then
step gracefully aside and let the ship
proceed into port.
But suppose a particularly hard
boiled prohibition officer boards this
captains ship and fails to see the
logic of the captains arguments. He
may be in the midst of telling the
captain to dump the liquor overheard
or else turn back to Liverpool when
the ships surgeon arrives at the
critical moment.
How do you get that way?" the
surgeon will ask in perfect English.
THAT liquor is not being carried as
ships stores or cargo any longer. 1t
Is being carried as medicine aboard
this vessel while it is in the three
mile limit. Your Supreme Court has
said nothing about how much medi-
cine a foreign vessel may carry while
States. Neither does your Volstead
act say how much liquor foreign
ship may bring into port as medicine
for Its crew and passengers. Furth-
ermore, young man, one of your own
judges has just said that your Con-
gress cannot say how much liquor a
doctor may prescribe. 1t very elo-
quently failed to mention. in its Vol
stead act, how much liquor a foreign
surgeon on foreign vessel may pre-
scribe for its foreign crew while in
one of your ports. Personally, / in
tend to prescribe three fingers of
brandy for every man jack of this
crew three times a day from the time
we sight the Statue Of Liberty until
we leave it behind. What have you
to say to that"
For the sake of brevity, it is best to
concede that the prohibition officer
mas long since jumped overheard.
How About the Diplomats.
Washington, unofficial Washington
at least, may not be so interested in
whether foreign vessels may bring
their liquor into port or whether they
must park it outside while visiting
America. But unofficial WASHINGTON
is interested in diplomatic liquor.
Romances arc woven about diplomatic
liquor in Washington which set the
Arabian Nights to shame. And one
OF the most interesting problems Gre
ated by the Supreme Courts decision
regards diplomatic liquor
There. is small chance of the diplo-
mats losing their liquor. That ques-
tion will always keep out of court,
and nobody in Washington wants the
diplomat to lose his liquor. There is
nothing in the Volstead act regard
ing diplomatic liquor. There are no
regulations at the Treasury Depart
ment permitting the diplomat to have
his liquor. 1t is merely an informal
understanding that he shall have it.
because, being diplomat, he is i'm
mune from the laws which beset his
undiplomatic fellow-man. But, neverthe-
less. every drop of liquor brought to
an embassy in Washington comes in
violation of the eighteenth amend
ment, which expressly prohibits the
importation" and Transportation" of
liquor for beverage purposes. The
Supreme Court defined importation as
stated above.
Blow Aimed mt Precedents.
Another quotation from the Su-
preme Courts opinion might easily
apply to diplomatic liquors.
THE plaintiffs invite attention"
said the court, ito data showing the
antiquity of the practice of carrying
Intoxicating liquors for beverage pur-
poses as part of ships stores, the
wide extent of the practice and it's
recognition in a congressional enact
ment, and argue therefrom that
neither the amendment nor the act
can have been intended to disturb
that practice. But in this they fail
to recognize that the avowed and
obvious purpose of both the amend
ment and the act was to put an end
to prior practices respecting such
liquors, even though the practices
had the sanction of antiquity, gen.
erality and statutory recognition"
The suggestion, informal as it was,
has been made that the diplomats
might bring their liquor into the
country in diplomatic pouches, which
are immune from search or seizure
But the Supreme Court said: 1T
is of no Importance that the
liquors in the plaintics' ships are
carried only as sea stores. Being sea
stores does not make them LIQUORS
any the less" Would. this apply to
diplomatic liquor? Being diplomatic
liquor, carried in diplomatic pouches,
1t would still be liquor and, what is the
important element, for beverage pur-
poses.
Panama Canal Exemption.
Another and most amazing paradox in
volved in the Supreme Courts decision
and this is the second time this para
dox has been involved in a Supreme
Court decision-is in respect of the Pa
mama canal exemption from the con-
stitutional amendment prohibiting the
transportation within United States
territory. The Supreme Court has
gone at length to explain, in the Ian
guage Of Justice Holmes, that lit Is
obvious that those whose wishes and
opinions were embodied in the amend
ment meant to stop the whole busi-
ness. When, therefore, the
amendment forbids not only importa-
tion and expectation from the United
States, but transportation within 1t,
the natural meaning. Of the word ex-
presses an altogether probable in
tent" But at the same time the Su-
preme Court states that - .
there is no provision for tranship-
ment or carriage across the country