Evening star., 1930-05-23
.DORAN EXPLAINS
CORK SALE RULE
Subject to Seizure Only When
Intent to Use Illegally Is
Proved, He Warns.
Continued From First Page.)


tual manufacture of liquor in its strict
est and most exact sense, could be con-
demned as property designed for the
manufacture of liquor intended for use
in violation Of the statute.
1.-THE contention of the Government
was afirmed that such property Incl
dental to the actual manufacture of
liquor intended for such use was for
feitable."
Search Warrant IL Sustained.
Explaining further the Danovitz case,
DR.. Doran said: I'm the District Court
and Court Of Appeals the search war;
rant issued for the seizure Of the equip
mept and apparatus Of the Feitler Bot
tie Co. was sustained.
This search warrant was issued On
afidavits that the afflants, who were
standing about IS feet away from the
moonshine whisky emanating from the
premises; that on the day before they
made a like detection; that during 10
days observation they saw motor cars
with license plates Of other States going
to and from the place, and they saw
in the building about 100 fve-gallon
cans of the kind bootleggers use for
conveying moonshine whisky. On these
affidavits the commissioner found in
issuing the warrant that the afiiants,
as they stated. had good reason to
believe, and did believe, that upon the
premises of the respondent there were
located and concealed intoxicating
LIQUORS and property for the nlanafac-
ture of intoxicating liquors which were
held and possessed for beverage pur-
poses In violation Of the act. On the
search under this warrant the agents
found liquors, cans Of glyco, havorins
nuts, gylcerin, gin extract. 402 whisky
barrels all containing whisky chips,
more than half of which contained q
small quantity Of whisky. and other
paraphernalia and apparatus. The re-
spondents contended that the incidental
property, not usable in the actual man.
ufacture of liquor. was not forfeitable.
This contention the Supreme Court re-
fused to affirm.
Decision Is Summarized.
Summarized, the decision Of the Su-
preme Court in this case goes no farther
than (1) to clarity the definition Of
the word manufacture as related to
the production of intoxicating liquors.
In section IS Of the national prohibition
act. by giving to 1t liberal meaning
30 as to embrace all articles and ma
terials necessary, included in or Incl
dental to such manufacture. and not
merely the simple, isolated act Of pro-
ducing. without reference to the ma
teriaIs. vessels and other articles
necessary to complets fully the act Of
manufacturing: and co to hold, with
certainty, that all such articles are
seizable and forfeitable under section
rs. along with the unlawful liquor when
used in that connection or as neces-
sarilv connected Herewith.
"T'he decision will for these two pur-
poses be of much value to the service
in that IL makes certain that which was
before more or less doubtful.
"But it does not relieve the Govern
xnent of the burden OF showing that
articles used In connection with the
manufacture of liquor are designed or
intended for use in violation OF the act"
Assistant Attorney General Young
quist declared that ut cannot be too
clearly understood by the Held service
that the decision of the Supreme Court
did only two things:
First" he said, lit construed the
meaning of the word manufacture as
it appears In the phrase 1t shall be
unlawful to have or possess any
property designed for the manufacture
Of liquor intended for use IN violating
this title
Cites Necessity for Proof.
SECONDLY, the court held that prop
erty usable In the manufacture O LIQUOR,
when designed or tntendeo ~ tns Pos"