Smyrna times., 1930-06-04
BUYER OF LIQUOR DECLARED
OUTSIDE Of LAW BY COURT
SUPREME COURT RENDERS A
DECISION OF IMPORTANCE
Unless Shipment is Involved by
knowledge of Buyer He Ap-
pears to Be Exempt


The buyer of bootleg liquor can
not, under ordinary circumstances,
be prosecuted. In one of the most
important decisions under prohibi
tion, the Supreme Court on Mon
day of last week made this ruling
in the test case of James E. Far
rar, of Boston. At the same time
it, in effect, declined to pass upon
the question whether the buyer of
liquor, who knows that transpOr-
tation 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 a Philadelphia
/ bootlegger. The high court said,
since Norris had virtually entered
plea of guilty by pleading nolo
contendere, his conviction must be
sustained. Following announce
ment of the Farrar decision, As
sistant Secretary Lowman, of the
Treasury, in charge of prohibition
enforcement, said the Prohibition
Unit had always taken the atti-
tude sustained by the court. A
difference of opinion developed
among Congressional drys as to
the advisability of pressing legis-
lation to make the buyer of liquor
equally guilty with the seller.
Senator Jones, Democrat, Wash
ington, author of the ''five and ten"
law, said he seriously doubted the
wisdom of any legislation seeking
to make the buyer guilty of viola
ting the prohibition laws in view
of the Supreme Courtf's decision
that the buyer was not punishable
under the present law. A little
earlier Senator Sheppard, Demo-
crat, Texas, author of such a
measure, had announced that he
would press for action upon it. In
the Farrar case, Justice Suther-
land pointed out that up until now
the Government had not consider
ed the buyer guilty. Commenting
that no additional legislation had
been passed by Congress, he said
the Court sustained a lower tri-
bunal's decision that quashed the
case against Farrar. Justice Suth-
erland said that Congress might
have purposely passed no addition
al laws. in order that the buyer
might testify against the seller
The Farrar case was selected as a
test case by Attorney General
Mitchell in an attempt to solve
several troublesome questions in
prohibition enforcement. The Fed
eral District Court quashed the
, Farrar indictment, holding it was
not an offense under the Prohibi-
ton act to purchase liquor from q
bootlegger. The Government took
the position in the Supreme Court
that all purchases of liquor, except
under a permit or a physician'S
prescription, were illegal. Counsel
for Farrar argued that the per.
mits which the Government in.
sisted were necessary 10 legallZe
the purchase of liquor were ISSUED
only to manufacturers and Other
authorized to withdraw liquor anC
alcohol for other than beverage
purposes, and did not apply to pur,
chasers from bootleggers. He alsC
pointed out that while the Prohi
bition Amendment was beins
framed in Congress, unsuccessful
efforts We're made to penalize pur
chasers, and that Senator Shep
pard, Democrat, Texas, one of tht
proponents of the Prohibition
Amendment, recognized that 1t die
not cover purchases of liquor from
bootleggers and now had pending
a bill to make such purchases il