Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-04-16
BACKGROUND OF EVENTS
BY PAUL Y. COLLINS.

mental America and all islands and the
contiguous waters.
+ y
All Of the above review Of the situa-
ton is based upon decisions Of the
United States Supreme Court. In Gro
gan, collector of internal revenue, first
district Of Michie n, " Hiram Walker &
Sons, Ltd, appellants. and In the case,
Anchor Line. Ltd, appellants. v. Aid
ridge, collector Of customs, port Of New
York g. c. Reporters ed. 80-eD. the
decision Of the United States Supreme
Court. written by Mr.. Justice Holmes,
says In part:
whether the Constitution and the VOL
stead act prohibit the transportation OF
intoxicating liquors from foreign port
through some part Of the United States
to another foreign port"
After reciting briefly the arguments
of attorneys based on treaty permit
ting exemption from duty Of merchar-
disc passing through the United States
territory under seal, Justice Holmes
points to the difference Of the principle
involved In transportation Of liquor. He
says:
ION the other side Is the eighteenth
amendment forbidding the manufacture.
sale or transportation OF intoxicating
liquor within. the Importation thereof
into. or the expectation thereof from the
United States and all territory subject
to the Jurisdiction thereof, for beverage
purposes. There Is also the National
prohibition Act Of october %, 1919,
Chapter IS, etc, which provides that,
except as therein authorized. after the
eighteenth amendment goes into effect,
40 person shall manufacture, sell, barter,
transport, import. export, deliver. fur
nish or possess any intoxicating liquor.
All the provisions of this act are TO be
literally construed, to the end that the
use Of intoxicating liquor as beverage
may be prevented"
After referring to the arguments that
all this applied only to the use Of liquor
as beverage within the United States,
Justice Holmes continued:
1.-THE eighteenth amendment meant
a great revolution in the policy Of this
country, and presumably and obviously
meant to upset good many things on
as well as OF the statute book. 1t did
not confine itself. in meticulous way.
to the use Of intoxicants in this coun-
try. It forbade the export for beverage
elsewhere. True, this discouraged pro-
duction here, but that was already for
hidden, and the provision applied to
liquor already lawfully made.
1T Is obvious" continued Justice
Holmes, speaking for the Supreme
Court, that those whose wishes and
opinions were embodied In the amend
ment meant to stop the whole business.
They did not want intoxicating liquor
In the United States. and reasonably
some of 1t was likely to stay. When,
| therefore, the amendment forbids not
only importation into and expectation
from. the United States, but Transport
tation within 1t, the natural meaning
Of the words expresses an altogether
probable intent"
Yet Congress-or its treaty-making
branch-ignored this ruling Of the
Supreme Court and bartered with Great
Britain to permit British vessels TO
bring liquor In under seal and to trans
port 1t across Alaska. under Canadian
armed guards. Wherein Is the constitu-
tional authority for the Leviathan 70
carry liquor scaled or unsealed, within
the one hours sailing from America.
Kx y y
A similar ruling Of the Supreme Court
was made in the cases $50 to 694, de-
cided April 80. 1913, in which Mr..
Justice Van Devanter wrote the opinion.
For brevity Of quotation, only such
principles as were not covered In the
Justice Holmes decision are here cited:
"a merchant ship Of one country
voluntarily entering the territorial limits
Of another, subjects herself to the juris-
diction Of the latter" In confirmation.
Justice Van Devanter cites q decision Of
Chief Justice John Marshall: THE
jurisdiction Of the Nation within its
own territory il necessarily exclusive"
Justice Van Devanter continues: "Ex-
aiming. the act as . whole, we think 1t
shows very plainly, first. that 1t is in
tended to be operative throughout the
territorial limits Of the United States
with the single exception stated in TX
Canal Zone provision; secondly. that 1t
Is not intended to apply to domestic
vessels outside the territorial waters of
the United States: thirdly, that 1t Is
intended to apply TO all merchant YES
sells, whether foreign or domestic, when
within those waters, save as the Panama
Canal Zone exception provides other
wise"
Accordingly, 1t is geography, and not
registration Of the ship, which deter
mines the Jurisdiction.
The Panama exception refers 10 the
Volstead act and not TO the Constitu-
ton, which make no Panama. nor
Philippines. nor Alaska exceptions. If,
query the lsw enforcers, transportation
rights across Alaska can be accorded by
treaty, above the Constitution, why not
also by treaty violate the Constitution
by permitting transportation from Can
ada to Mexico, via Detroit. st. Louis
and New Orieansa II foreign ships
can bring liquor into New York, sealed.
under authority Of treaty, and against
the amendment, why discriminate
against the Leviathan? Il not the
United States q most favored nation"
- - - - &t.a f5eunr4.ranT,k ~ tha