Evening star., 1923-01-04
LIQUOR SHIP ruling
/ ISARGUED TODAY
Attorneys for Government
and Companies Present
! Cases in Supreme Court.

The ten cases brought by foreign
steamship companies and the two
brought by American operators to
contest the construction placed by
Attorney General Daugherty upon the
prohibition amendment and enforce
ment act were UP for oral argument
in the Supreme Court today. Under the
ruling. foreign ships would be pro-
hibited from entering American
waters with intoxicating liquors In
their sea stores. and American ships
would be prohibited from having
such liquor aboard at any place.
The case came before the court on
appeal from a decision by Federal
Judge Hand, in New York, upholding
the Attorney General.
Prominent Attorneys.
The argument will continue to-
morrow with a notable array Of
counsel. including former Attorney
General Wickersham for the foreign
steamship companies. Reid L. Carr.
George A. Ellis and Frederick H.
Stokes for the United States lines. and
John NJ. Woolsey. Cletus Heating, ].
Parker Kirlin and Ira A. Campbell
for the International Mercantile Ma
rine Company. The government is
Beck, Assistant Attorney General
Mabel w. Willebrandt, and Special
Assistant Wheat.
Expressing the belief that the use
of liquor did more than any other
thing to debauch and degrade our
manhood and womanhood," and that
whatever material hardship might
be the direct OF indirect result OF
ch
ing in view of the evils to be re-
moved and the blessings to follow"
the government attorneys insists that
II was the purpose of the prohibition
States absolutely dry. They also
argue that this has been recognized
as the intent of the amendment and
enforcement act by the Supreme
foreign vessels were prohibited from
transshipping intoxicating liquor In
american ports. and foreign liquor
shipments in bond were forbidden
across United States territory.
Intent of Congress.
Counsel on both sides admit that
Congress can prohibit foreign steam
ktquor into American ports, but, while
counsel for the government insist
that the court should interpret pres
ent laws as having that effect, Mr..
Wickersham asserts that had Con-
gress intended to bar liquor from
the sea stores of foreign vessels, It
would have been explicit to that ef-
feet. as 1t was in excluding smoking
opium.
The construction urged by the gov
ernment. II enforced. he contends
would result in the search Of all for
eign ships upon reaching American
ports, warships and merchantmen
alike, and the conflscation of those
vessels upon which Intoxicating liquor
was found. 1t would also. he argues.
oblige the government to stop the
supply Of wines and liquors to the
foreign embassies. legations and con-
sulates in this country. and foreign
ships forced by stress of weather to
enter American ports would be for
fsited if liquor was found aboard.
Notwithstanding international law
and the usage of civilized nations.
Governments Position.
The foreign steamship companies
are not properly before the court, the
government insists. and have other
relief open to them under the law, II
the Interpretation of the Attorney
General is not sound. Should the
court determine. however. to decide
the cases on their merits, the gov
ernment contends that the argument
of the foreign steamship companies
that the national prohibition act does
not go beyond the limits of the pro-
hibition amendment. which only pro-
hibits the sale, importation and ex-
portation, and not merely possession
of liquor, should be considered in the
light of the declared policy of the
country.
All ships, foreign and American, the
government insists, have been for
hidden to bring wines and intoxi-
eating liquors into this country as a
part Of their cargoes. There being no
legal distinction between cargo and
sea stores the government argues, 1t
follows that Congress did not intend
to exempt sea stores from the opera
ton OF the prohibition laws.
ORense Declared "RegrettabIe."
While the government attorneys de-
clare 1t would be "regrettab BILE" should |
the enforcement of the prohibition |
Jaws Offend friends beyond the sea-" |
they express the opinion that foreign
nations which have shipping regula- (;
lions requiring the carrying of wines |
and liquors for the use of crews and |
certain passengers would recast them |
so as to conform to our laws. 1
In the American steamship cases |
the controversy centers largely upon |
the proper construction to be given |
by the word territory" as used by |
Congress in extending the prohibit |
tion act to territory subject to the !
jurisdiction" of the United States. |
nations territory" extends wher- |
ever the United States has "jurisdic- |
tion," and that, having Jurisdiction" |
over American vessels on the high |
seas and IN foreign ports, the prohi- !
bition law automatically applies to |
them.
Counsel for the American steamship |
companies combat such a construc- !
tion, insisting that under decisions Of |
the courts the TERRITORY of the
United States is '1and" over which |
dominion or sovereignty has been
acquired and which can be admitted
into the Union as a state. ship is |
not territory" in a physical sense |
they argue. nor in the sense in which
the word is employed in the consti- |
tuition. |
Question of Territoriality.
While a ship sometimes is fancifulIy
or figuratively called part of the ter !
ritory OF the nation whose flag 1t |
files, the American appellants argue |
numerous instances can be cited |
showing that the "territoriality" of a |
ship Is an "unmeaning phrase" In
time of war; they declare, this coun-
try has invariably denied that the
Guard Against ''Flu"