Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-05-26
BUYERS EXEMPTED
FROM RUM CHARGE
BY SUPREME COURT
Purchasers Held Not Guilty
With Seller in Farrar
Test Case.
TRIBUNAL DECLINES
TRANSPORTATION RULE
knowledge Of Illegal Delivery and
Nolo Contendere Plea, However,
Make Prosecution Possible.

By the Associated Press.
The buyer Of bootleg liquor cannot,
under ordinary circumstances, be prose-
cuted.
In one Of the most important deci-
sions under prohibition the Supreme
Court today made this ruling in the
test case Of James e. Farrar of Boston.
At the same time it in effect de-
clined to pass upon the question
whether the buyer Of liquor who knows
that shipment is involved in delivery
can be prosecuted for conspiracy.
The latter case was that Of Alfred
E. Norris, New York banker, who bought
liquor from Philadelphia bootlegger.
Norris Conviction Sustained.
The higher court said, since Norris
had virtually entered a plea of guilty
by pleading nolo contendere, his con-
viction must be sustained.
1t declined to state, therefore, whether
purchaser ordering and knowing
transportation was involved, was guilty
of conspiracy.
Norris was indicted on a charge Of
conspiring with Joel D. Kerper of Phil
adelphia to violate the prohibition law.
The Federal District Court, at Phil
adelphia, held Norris guilty of con-
spiracy, but the Circuit Court of Ap-
peals set aside the conviction, holding
the transportation incident to delivery
VHy0S Svan -
that delivery to the purchaser does not
subject the purchaser and seller to an
indictment for conspiracy to transport.
Both courts announced that the mere
purchase Of liquor was no offense under
the prohibition law.
Governments Contention.
Stating that the purchaser of LIQUOR
at his home or ONCE from a bootlegger
business, without an order from the
purchaser, presented no question of
conspiracy to violate the law, the Gov
eminent insisted that when q person
ordered liquor from q bootlegger,
whether 1t was delivered to the pur-
shaser by the bootlegger, or shipped by
the bootlegger, the purchaser and the
bootlegger had been guilty Of conspir-
acy to Illegally ship liquor In violation
During the oral argument Of the case
in the Supreme Court it developed that
Norris had entered the plea Of nolo
contendere, which members of the court
stated had the effect of o plea Of guilty.
They suggested then, that under the
circumstances, 1t might be impossible
for for court to decide the controversy
on its merits. The Government urged
the court to brush aside all technical
tiles. and aid 1t in prohibition enforce
ment with ruling which would remove
all doubt In the case.
Farrar Case Explanation.
In the Farrar case, Justice Sutherland
pointed out that up until now the Gov
eminent had not considered the buyer
guilty. Commenting that no additional
legislation had been passed by Con-
greSs, he said the court sustained a
lower tribunals decision that quashed
the case against Farrar.
Justice Sutherland said that Con-
gress might have purposely passed no
additional laws, in order that the buy
er might testify against the seller.
Following announcement of the de-
cision, Assistant Secretary Lowman of
the Treasury in charge Of prohibition
enforcement said that the prohibition
unit had always taken the attitude suS-
tanned by the court.
The decision is expected to result in
renewed agitation for legislation to
make the buyer guilty. A bill to that
effect now Is pending.
No Dissent Announced.
No dissent was announced to the
opinion in the Farrar case, which said:
Since long before the adoption of the
eighteenth amendment 1t has been held
with practical unanimity that, in the
absence of an express statutory provi-
sion to the contrary, the purchaser of
intoxicating liquor, the sale of which
was prohibited, was guilty of no offense.
ana statutes to the contrary have been
the rare exception.
Probably it was thought more i'm
portant to preserve the complete free
dom of the purchaser to testify against
the seller than to punish him for max
| Ing the purchase.
However that may be. it is fair to as
| sumo that Congress- when 1t came to
pass the prohibition act, knew this his
tory and, acting in the light of it, de-
llberately and deSignedly omitted to i'm
pose upon the purchaser of liquor for
| beverage purposes any criminal liability.
If aid were needed to support this
view OF the matter, 1t would be found
In the facts conceded by the Govern
ment brief, that during the entire life
of the national prohibition act, a period
Of 10 years, the executive department
| charged with the administration and
enforcement of the act has uniformly
construed 1t as not including the pur-
chas|- in a case like the present. No
prosecution until the present one has
ever been undertaken upon a different
theory; and Congress, Of course, well
aware of this construction and prac-