Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-04-09
ASKS TEST OF GUILT
IN ORDERING rum
Attorney General Contends
Consignee ConSpires to
Violate Dry Law.
By the Associated Press.

BY the Associated Press
Attorney General Mitchell urged the
Supreme Court in a brief filed today
to hold that person ordering liquor
shipped to him is guilty of conspiracy
to violate the national prohibition law.
The brief was filed in an appeal
brought by the Government attacking
the decision of the Circuit Court of
Appeals, which held that Alfred E. Nor
ris, New York banker, was not guilty
of conspiracy to violate the prohibition
law in having liquor shipped to him
by Joel D. Kerper, from Philadelphia.
Pointing out that the Circuit Court
of Appeals had held that the purchase
of LIQUOR was not an offenSe and that
the transportation from Philadelphia
was merely an incident of the purchase,
the Attorney General emphasized that
the guilt of a purchaser was not in
volved, but only the question whether
person who orders liquor delivered to
him, knowing that his order involved
unlawful transportation, was guilty
with the bootlegger of conspiracy to vio-
late the prohibition law.
Holds Guilt Is Divided.
Attorney General Mitchell commended
that when the bootlegger delivers
numerous shipments of liquor to an
express company, as in the Norris case,
and the purchaser causes its shipment
and delivery to him, there is illegal
transportation for which the purchaser
Is equally guilty with the seller.
Filing another brief in the Farrar
case, to be heard April %, Mr.. Mitchell
yesterday asked a ruling as to whether
the buyer of liquor is guilty along with
the seller of violating the national pro-
hibition act. The case involves the
specific question whether it is an offense
under the prohibition act to purchase
intoxicating liquor except as authorized
by the statute.
Purchase Not Included in Statute.
The fact that purchase of liquor is
not included in the enumeration of acts
made offenses by the law docs not eS-
tablish that Congress did not intend to
make the purchase of liquor an offense."
the Justice Departments brief set forth.
Any construction of the act that would
permit the purchase of liquor as a
beverage, the brief stated, would ap-
pear to run counter to the provision of
section 3, that all the provisions of this
act shall be literally construed to the
end that the use of intoxicating liquor
as a beverage may be prevented"
Attorney General Mitchell cited two
opinions Of the Supreme Court Of the
United States wherein it is held that
the prohibition act shall be literally
construed to the end that the use of
intoxicating liquor as a beverage may
be prevented"
Quotations are given in the brief from
comments made in Congress while the
eighteenth amendment and the Vol
stead act were under consideration, in
which it was stated by the author OF
the joint resolution proposing the
amendment that the embodying of the
words purchase and use" was not
necessary.
Attention also is called in the brief
to the fact that In four cases in diff
ferent United States Circuit and Dis
trict courts there have been express
sions to the effect that the purchase Of
liquor y not an offense.