Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-06-01
BY WILLIAM HARD.

The rapidly approaching stage in the
wet agitation in this country seems to
be one which in india would be called
civil diSobedience." Many dry leaders
here are less alarmed by plans for the
repeal Of the eighteenth amendment or
for the modification of the Volstead law
than they are by the quick recent
growth of the open preaching Of per-
sonal individual diSobedience to the pro-
hibitory enactmentS.
Great impetus has been lent TO the
disobedience development by the de-
cision of the Supreme Court last week
holding that the purchaser of Illicit
liquor Is not guilty of any infraction
of the eighteenth amendment or to
the laws passed for furthering its en-
forcement. 1t should be understood
that the view taken by the Supreme
Court Is the view which steadily and
persistently has been taken by the lead
ing legal authorities Of the Prohibition
Bureau of the Treasury Department.
Only the prosecuting zeal of local pro-
hibition administrators or of local
United States district attorneys ever
brought purchasers of Illicit liquor into
the Federal Courts for attempted con-
viction. The central Prohibition Bureau
itself at Washington has always main
tanned that the Volstead law and the
laws accompanying it and fortifying it
do not even try to visit penalties upon
purchasers.
Bureau Sees No Advantage.
It Is believed by the Prohibition
could indeed, under the eighteenth
amendment, and within its authority,
condemn purchasers and subject them
to punishment. 1t seems also to be
believed, however, by the Prohibition
Bureau that no such action by the
Congress would be of any clear advan-
tage to the prohibition enforcement
cause. The fear seems to be that pros
ecutions Of purchasers. when the total
number Of purchasers Is so large, would
fall under one Of two crushing impede
fairly to discriminate between rela-
lively few purchasers who would be
prosecuted and the great majority Of
them who would 60 untouched; or
else, II any important proportion of
purchasers should be prosecuted, the
Federal Courts would be so jammed
with prohibition business that no other
business could be transacted in them.
For such and other reasons the Pro-
hibition Bureau and the mass OF the
dry leaders in Washington are giving
little support to the bill Of Senator
Sheppard of Texas, for inserting the
word purchase" into section Of
the national prohibition act. Section
Is on this point the decisive Sec
ton Of the act The strong proba-
bility Is that at the end of this session
Of the Congress the wording Of section
will continue to have its present form,
az follows:
mo person shall manufacture, sell,
barter, transport, import, export, de-
liver, furnish or possess any intoxicat-
ing liquor"
Careful students Of the subject note,
however, the presence and the reten-
ton of the word possess" The word
purchase" will in all probability not
be inserted; but the word possess"
remains. The question is thereupon
here asked:
What legal good does 1t do the pur-
chaser Of liquor TO be able to purchase
1t lawfully If he then at once finds him
self possessing 1t unlawfully?
Private Citizen UnmoIested.
To that question the prohibition au-
thorities return no enlightening answer.
They simply say that purchase Is legal
and that possession Is illegal. That Is
their position in principle. In practice
it Is well known that the prohibition
authorities of the Federal Government
make virtually no effort to raise the
arm of the Federal law against the
ordinary private citizen, who, having
purchased liquor, is in possession of it
with no intention to resell 1t, but with
the intention only Of consuming 1t him
SELF
1t is at this point that the controversy
regarding Representative Fort OF New
Jersey and his alleged defense OF the
legality Of home brew" begins to re-
veal itself in its true light. Representa-
tive Fort was perhaps at frst mlsieo
by section 80 of the national prohibl-
ton act one part Of which states, IL
shall not be unlawful to possess liquors
in ones private dwelling" He may
also have been slightly misled by sec
ton 20, having to do In one part OF IL
with fruit juices.
Fruit Juice Section Involved.
Section SO, authorizing the possession
of liquors in households, is said by the
Prohibition Bureau to apply only 10
liquors purchased before the coming
into force of the eighteenth amendment
Section 80, permitting the household
manufacture Of mon Intoxicating" fruit
juices, admittedly does not legalize the
possession of them after they become
Intoxicating in fact" The general
proposition remains true that possession
of alcoholic intoxicants is by Federal
statute, under the eighteenth amend
ment, stringently forbidden. Purchase
is legal, and manufacture In the in
stance Of fruit juices is, to the intox.
icating stage, legal with or without
permit: but possession without permit
Of any intoxicating beverages whatso-
ever Except pre-prohibition ones)
seems clearly outlawed. This Is at any
rate the position taken by the most
eminent legal luminaries among the
Federal Governments prohibition en-
| forcement officials.
| 1t remains equally true nevertheless
that mere possession of intoxicating