Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-05-23
Intent to Use Articles in Illicit
Manner Must Be Evident
Before Seizure.
WARNS AGENTS TO USE
CARE IN INTERPRETATION
All Are Forfeitable Only When
Connected With Unlawful Making
Of Liquor, He Explains.

Warning that there was q "wide-
spread. popular misunderstanding Of
the effect Of the decision of the Su-
preme Court" In the famous Danovitz
cork, cap and key decision. Prohibition
Commissioner James M. Doran today
issued explicit instructions to his entire
enforcement staff declaring much bur-
den OF proof still rested on the Gov
eminent to show intent to violate the
law.
In its "loose" construction of the
word manufacture" the Supreme Court
decision was held by DR.. Doran to have
much Of value to the service"
cision held with certainty that all such
articles are seizable and forfeitable
under section Is prohibition act),
along with the unlawful liquor, when
used In that connection, or as neces-
sarily connected Herewith"
Proof Is Emphasized.
But the point which was sharply en-
phasized by the commissioner, and
which had not been brought forth be-
fore in previous informal interpreta-
tons OF the decision, was one of warm
Ing concerning the burden Of proof.
not relieve the Government 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"
The misunderstanding" which had
apparently become widespread, DR..
Doran said, was that cit is assumed
that this decision authorizes seizures
Of empty containers, bottles and other
AnnATQfilC n fy1 6n
manufacture of intoxicating liquor
merely because they are assembled and
displayed for sale.
This assumption In effect would
dispense with the legal proof required
in such cases by the statute, and
present in the instant case"
A forecast of the large part the De-
partment Of Justice soon is to play in
enforcement Of prohibition was seen
in the fact that in his instructions DR..
Doran incorporated part of a letter from
Assistant Attorney General G. A.
Youngquist, In charge of prohibition
prosecutions. The Assistant Attorney
General approved Of the restrictive In
depreciation of the decision Of the SUI
preme Court and also pointed to the
proof" burden.
Presence Is Not discriminating.
1T must not be overlooked by the
field service" said Youngquist, that
proof of design to effect manufacture
OF liquor, as the word Is now broadly
interpreted, is still required of the
Government. The mere presence of
bottles, corks, crooks, caps and Gaping
machines does not, in our opinion, prove
design to use them for the manufac-
ture Of liquor intended for use in vio-
lating the prohibition act. Other cir
cumStanceS must be present"
The Department OF Justice soon will
ton from the Treasury Department,
although legislation providing for the
transfer has not yet been signed by the
President.
With his circular letter, DR.. Doran
inclosed mimeographed copies Of the
opinion Of the Supreme Court, which
was rendered May 5, and also the opin-
ion Of the Circuit Court Of Appeals Of
the Third Circuit, rendered July 10.
Fixes Meaning Of Manufacturer
by its ruling in this case" said DR..
Doran, "the Supreme Court has settled
the construction of the term 'manufac-
ture' as 1t appears in Section as, Title II,
Of the national prohibition act, which
provides In part that it is unlawful to
have or possess any liquor or property
intended for use in violating this title
or which has been so used and no prop
erty rights shall exist in any such liquor
or property
"The case" DR.. Doran explained,
came before the Supreme Court on
the single question of whether proper
~, such as empty containers, bottles and
other apparatus, not disable in the ac-
CONTINUED on Page 2, Column 81