Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-04-28
RUM BUYERS GUILT.
PUT BEFORE COURT
Question Is Brought Up by
Mitchell in Two Cases,
Seeking Decision.
BY the Associated Press.

BY the Associated Press.
Oral arguments were begun in the
Supreme Court today to determine
phether purchasers of Illicit liquor are
guilty of violating the national prohibi-
| ton law.
The question came before the highest
tribunal in two forms. In one the Gov
eminent contends that those who order
liquor from bootleggers knowing that 1t
must be Illegally transported to reach
them, are guilty of conspiracy to violate
the prohibition law. In the other, the
Government expresses some doubt as to
whether the purchaser who obtains
liquor from bootlegger without order
ing its illegal transportation Is equally
guilty with the hootlegger. 1t was pre-
pared to urge, however, that the court
| hold him guilty.
The conspiracy case was brought by
| the Government from Philadelphia,
where Alfred E. Norris, a New York
banker, was charged with violating the
| prohibition law when he placed orders
with Joel d. Kerper of Philadelphia for
| the shipment of bootleg liquor. The
Federal District Court at Philadelphia
convicted Norris of conspiracy to violate
the prohibition law, but the Circuit
Court of Appeals reversed the ruling,
| holding that such transportation as may
be necessary to effect delivery does not
| subject the purchaser and seller to an
! indictment for conspiracy to transport
Although declaring Norris guilty Of con-
spiracy the district court announced
| that the mere purchase of liquor was
not an offense, as did the Circuit Court
of Appeals.
ATTORNEY General Mitchell in his brief
| in the Norris case, which furnished an
outline for today's oral argument, de-
clared that whether or not the ma
tional prohibition act makes the act OF
purchase a crime in itself, it manifeStly
! does not invest the purchaser with any
| special immunity from the consequences
of doing those things which beyond
question are made criminal. The mere
fact that one is a purchaser gives him
no license to violate the law with i'm
punity."
James E. Farrar was indicted at Bos-
ton on the charge of having purchased
| liquor from. Frank Rotondo of Medford
Mass. The Federal District Court dis
missed the case, holding that the pur-
| chase of liquor was not an offenSe under
| the prohibition law. The Government
contends that any purchase of ntoxi-
| eating liquor without permit is VIC"
lation of the VolStead act Counsel fol
Farrar will take the view of the Dis
trict Court that the permit required by
the prohibition law applied only tc
those to whom a permit may lawfully
be issued, such as manufacturers using
whisky, alcohol and wines in their
business, and not to purchaser from
a bootlegger.
Attorney General Mitchell, in his
brief, pointed out that the dominant
purpose of the prohibition act is the
prevention of the consumption of in
toxicating liquor as a beverage s5nc
urged the highest court to inter.
pref the law to bring about that
result. He took the position that
the failure to include the purchase Of
liquor in the VolStead law as one of the
acts prohibited did rot establish that
Congress intended that the purchase
of liquor should not be an offense. ANY
purchase of liquor not authorized by
the act was, he declared, illegal.
For the information of the court, he
presented in his brief, however, a num-
Der of decisions by the courts and eX-
tracts from congressional debates ir
support of the argument tnat Congress
did not intend to make tie purchaser
equally guilty with the seller.