The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1930-05-27
Senator Sheppard to Press
Demand for Law to
Punish Purchaser.
LEGAL, COURT HOLDS
Nothing Unlawful in Act of
Giving Trade to
BoOtIegger.
BY NATHAN ROBERTSON
United Press Staff Correspondent

WASHINGTON, May 27.-Effoyts
to put a new law on the statute
books making the liquor buyer
criminal and to revoke, by court
action, number of outstanding in
dustrial alcohol permits, appeared
today as the first fruits of two out
standing decisions handed down by
the United States supreme court.
These decisions, emanating
Monday from the nations highest
judicial body, definitely established
two facts:
The buyer of liquor is not guilty
of criminal offense under the ma
tional prohibition act
Indeterminate industrial alcohol
permits, issued by the treasury de-
partment prior to 1927, can not be
revoked without court action.
Sheppard to Press Bill
The first decisionN led to an i'm
MEDIATE statement by Senator Shop
pard Dem., Tex, author of the
eighteenth amendment, that con-
gress should write the word "pur-
chase" alongside the words manu-
facture, sell, transport" in the Vol
stead law
Many prohibition leaders in both
the house and senate said they felt
this broadening of the Volstead act
would make it harder to enforce.
They feared it might result in the
complete breakdown Of all enforce
ment.
Among those doubling the wisdom
of the move were Senators Jones
(Rep., Wash), author of the famous
five and ten" law, and Fess
(Rep., o..
Similar sentiments were enter
tanned by vets, who commended Moth
ing could help their cause more
than an attempt to prosecute the
purchaser of liquor One Of them,
Senator Walsh Oem., Mass, said:
Change Action on Permits
1T will be interesting now to see
if the sincere prohibitionists will
take the step they ought to take if
they believe the use of intoxicating
liquors is harmful and dangerous.
namely, amend the present law to
make purchase unlawful"
UAdeterred by the division among
the drys, Sheppard said he would
seek immediate consideration of his
buyer guilty" bill which has been
pending before the senate Judiciary
committee for some months, without
action.
At the treasury department,
present dry enforcement agency, the
courts decision that the Volstead
act does not affect the liquor buyer
was seen as having little or no
effect on enforcement. The govern
ment, it was said, has never acted
on the belief the buyer was guilty.
However, proceedings to revoke a
number of indeterminate permits
issued to manufacturers using in
duStrial alcohol soon are to be in
stituted by the treasury as result
of the courts second decision.
Rule on Car Conductor
Since 1927 the treasury has re-
vcked-whenever they expired-per-
nit of manufacturers whom it sus-
pected of violating the law by di-
verting their alcohol into bootleg
channels. 1t will now be impossible
to do this.
The permits obtained since 1927
and to be issued hereafter, however,
will be on an annual renewal basis,
and may be revoked by the treasury
without the necessity of legal action.
The courts decision regarding
liquor buyers was made on the gov
ernment's appeal in the case Of
James E. Farrar, Boston, charged
with violating the permit section Of
the dry laws when he bought two
pints of liquor from Medford
(Mass) bootlegger.
The second case was brought by
number of chemical and medical
concerns who argued their products
were not liquor" and hence did
not come under the treasury de-
partment regulations affecting
liquor.