Evening star., 1923-04-30
COURT RAISES BAN
Ion SERVING LIQUOR
ON us. SH|PSA SEA
Supreme Bench Also Prohib-
its Any Vessel Bringing
Intoxicants to Port.
MUST DUMP SUPPLIES
OUTSIDE 3-MILE LIMIT
Opinion of Daugherty Against
Intoxicants on Ocean Is
Overruled.

I'll, ruling of Attorney General
FauGherty against serving liquor on
american ships on the high seas was
overturned today by the Supreme
Court which held at the same time,
however that the han prohibiting
hoti American and foreign ships
from bringing liquor stocks into
American ports under bond was legal
sd enforceable.
Within the three-mile limit. how
over. the court found that an entirely
different situation obtained. Sustain
3nS the position taken by Judge Hand
pn that point, the decision declared
j. illegal for American or foreign
ships to bring into American ports
a. water liquor sealed in bond for
the use of passengers on outgoing
Voyages.
Uphold Judge Hand.
The court held that the prohibition
kmendment could not legally be ap-
piled to prevent American ships from
selling beverages when they are out
side American territorial waters. 10
that extent the decision reversed a
decision in the case 10y Federal Judge
Hand at New York.
The majority opinion held that the
words transportation and 'lmporta-
non as uStu III pTOnlDlliou ntlCt-
forth are To be taken in their or
binary sense. Transportation is held
10 be carrying from one locality to
another, it added, and it is not neces-
Eary that the transfer of possession
or title should be contemplated.
In that connection the court OBJ
served that one cannot carry liquor
i'll his own automobile for his own
use.
The decision. regarded by the fed
nf
important yet handed down in regard
to prohibition enforcement, was read
by Justice Van Devanter. Justices
NcReynolds and Sutherland dissented.
Justice Sutherland explained in his
dissenting opinion that he agreed
that American ships cannot have
aboard intoxicating liquors in Amer
lean territorial waters, but believed
the prohibition should not apply to
foreign ships.
Under its Interpretation, the court
stated. that no liquor could be
brought into the territorial waters
of the United States except through
the Panama canal, but that while
the prohibition against importation
or presence aboard under any cir
rumstances was complete, neither the
amendment nor the enforcement act
had made any reference to liquor
aboard American ships on the high
seas outside American territorial
jurisd ction.
For that reason the decision of the
lower court which held that American
ships could not have liquor on board
on the high seas was set aside.
Importation consists. the court said,
of bringing into a country from the
outside. entrance through a customs
house not being necessary to conSti-
tute importation in the true sense.
The term territory of the United
States" was given the common defini-
confined over
which the United States exercised
jurisdiction as a sovereign power and
three miles at sea from its shore lines
Effect Still Unknown.
What the practical effect of the
decision of the highest tribunal
will be could not be foretold.
Until the recent opinion of the
Attorney General, American steam
ships were permitted to serve
LIQUORS on the high seas and in for
eign ports. and both American and
foreign vessels could bring intoxi-
cants intended for that purpose into
American ports, sealed in their sea
stores
Now, however, ships serving liquor
and having a surplus left on arrival
at the three-mile limit could not un-
der the decision of the court bring it
into territorial waters of the United
States in any form, and ships bound
away from American ports will have
10 pass beyond the territorial limit
without any intoxicants aboard,
Some officials suggested it was
difficult to see how, under these cir
cumstances, American ships could re-
sumo liquor serving without great in
convenience. g..
So far as the fleet operated by the
Shipping Board is concerned, it al
ready has been indicated that as a
matter of policy liquor serving prob
ably will not be resumed, despite the
privilege given under the decision of
the court.
Examining the act as a whole" the
court said, we think it shows very
plainly, first, that it is intended to
be operative throughout the terri
torial limit of the United States, with
the single exception stated in the
Continued on Page 3. Column ~