Evening star., 1929-01-01
LIQUOR PURCHASE
STATUS IN DISPUTE
Wet and Dry Adherents Draw
Different Conclusions From
Philadelphia Decision.
BY FREDERIC WILLIAM VILE.

Most thirsty Americans jumped to
the conclusion the other day, when
Federal Judge kirkpatrick of Phila-
delphia decided that liquor purchase
without transportation is not a crime,
that simple retail transaction with a
bootlegger is therefore unpunishable.
The Anti-Saloon League of America
through its legal department, informs
this writer there is no warrant for such
a conclusion. The national prohibition
act, it is declared in that quarter, un-
quaIifiedly forbids liquor purchase with
out a permit So to acquire alcoholic
drink, according to Edward B. Dun
ford, attorney of the Anti-Saloon
League, is an indictable offense.
AS many wet spokesmen have been
rejoicing that Judge Kirkpatrick'S de-
cision in the Norris case takes the
curse off mere purchase" of liquor,
this writer asked the law officers of the
official prohibition organization to dis
cuss that Interpretation. Mr.. Dun
ford says:
Section 6, title II, of the national
prohibition act provides that No one
shall manufacture, sell, purchase, trans
port or prescribe any liquor without first
obtaining permit from the commits
sioner so to do. except that a person
may, without a permit. purchase and use
liquor for medicinal purposes when
prescribed by a physician as herein
provided, and except that any person
who in the opinion of the commissioner
is conducting bona fide hospital or
Sanatorium, may, under such rules,
regulations and conditions as the COM
missioner shall prescribe, purchase and
wit, f1,o OF
use in such institution, liquor, to be ad-
ministered to the patients of such insti-
tuition under the direction Of a duly
qualified physician employed by such
institution
Calls Buying Indictable.
"You will observe that under the
terms of section of the present law
an indictment will lie for the purchase
of liquor without permit Section
of the act also makes it illegal to pos
sess liquor except as authorized therein
There are also a few State statutes
which contain provisions making the
purchase of liquor for beverage purposes
an offense."
Dunford explains that from the prac-
tical standpoint of law enforcement, the
anti-purchase statutes don't accomplish
very much. The reason Is that every
sale involves a purchase. Most sales
take place in secret, there being no
witness except the buyer and the seller.
When both the sale and purchase are
made substantive" offenSeS, the Gov
ernment cannot compel the testimony
of one party to the transaction against
the other except by granting immunity
from prosecution to the witness to the
transaction. This Is made necessary
because of the constitutional guarantee
against self-incrinination contained in
the fifth amendment. There are pro-
visions similar to the Federal Constitu-
ton guarantee in State statutes. Sec
ton 80, Title II. of the national prohi-
bition act provides means whereby the
Government may grant immunity to the
witness under certain circumstances and
compel his testimony. Owing to this
situation the Government prosecutor
usually elects to proceed against the
seller, who is engaged in the traffic
through mercenary motives.
Effects of Evidence Rules.
There Is also rule of evidence in
some States which precludes conviction
upon the uncorroborated testimony of
an accomplice, and where the statute
makes both sale and purchase an
offense the courts in such States hold
the purchaser to be an accomplice.
Thus, even if the State undertakes to
prosecute the purchaser upon the testi-
mony of the seller. the courts hold
that the unsupported testimony of the
seller is insufficient to sustain convic-
ton. Because of this rule of evidence
the attempt to prosecute the purchaser
in such States has not met with much
success.
Indiana and Texas have had strong
anti-purchaSe provisions in their
statutes. The present law of Indiana
lays down that "it shall be unlawful