Evening star., 1934-02-01
PROVISION AGAINST
BUYER Of ILLEGAL
LIQUOR CONFySES
Congress Begins to Realize
II Put All Purchasers on
Par With Sellers.
RECORD SHOWS SENATE
PLACED WORDS IN BILL
Situation Further Muddled by New
Arrests on "Unbonded
Liquor" Charges.

The members Of Congress just began
to realize today that the Federal liquor
tax act which they passed early in
January carries provision making
the purchaser Of illegal liquor equally
guilty with the seller
The effect of the innocent-appearing
provision was first brought to light late
yesterday by Assistant United States
Attorney David A. Hart, who has made
careful study of the act in prepa-
ration for the prosecution of four men
arrested on liquor charges since the
District liquor law became effective.
Meanwhile in Police Court today the
situation regarding bootleg prosecution
was muddled more than ever when
four more defendants appeared,
charged with "unbonded liquor" pre-
sumably an offense against the new
District liquor act
The Federal liquor act provision is
embodied in section 201 under title 2
OF the act which reads: mo person
shall Except as provided in section 2o2)
transport, possess, buy, sell or transfer
any distilled spirits unless the i'm
mediate container thereof has affixed
thereto stamp denoting the quantity
OF the distilled spirits contained therein
and evidencing payment of all internal
revenue taxes imposed on such spirits"
Origin a Mystery.
The story of how the provision was
made applicable to the buyer of illegal
liquor appears to be somewhat Of a
mystery at the Capitol, although House
members know considerable pains we're
taken while the bill was under dis
cussion to exempt the purchaser. The
-,
that the Senate was responsible.
The House as a matter of fact,
adopted on recommendation of Repre-
sentative Mccormack of Massachusetts,
an amendment expressly exempting the
purchaser from the effect of the pro-
vision. After the word buy in the
provision, the House inserted on motion
Of Mccormack the words "for sale
which would have changed the situa-
ton entirely as far as the purchaser
was concerned
But the Senate, however, without dis
cusSion struck out on recommendation
| Of the Finance Committee the words
for sale" which, according to some of
! the legal minds in Congress, makes the
buyers ard sellers of liquor in which
the tax has not been paid equally guilty
| Of violating the law
! When the bill was under considera-
ton in the House Representative Brit
ten. Republican of Illinois, called at
! tention to the provision before it was
/ amended and said it likely would cause
an innocent consumer TO 60 to Jail for
buying bottle of gin which has not
been properly stamped although he may
| not know 1t"
Change Called Mistake
! Britten was unaware that the bill
as finally enacted would make the pur-
chaser equally guilty with the seller
and declared today that the Senate
change was "a mistake and contrary to
the intent Of Congress"
! Il am sure Congress had no inten-
tion OF making the purchaser of liquor
not properly stamped equally guilty
with the seller" Britten said The
act as 1t now stands not only will
catch the innocent purchaser who buys
from bootlegger but the person who
buys from an unlicensed vendor.
Any prosecutor who prosecutes a
| purchaser of liquor under this act, am
sure, will do so against the wishes of
/ Congress"
| Violators Of the provision are SUBJ
| ject to fine of $1,000 or imprison-
ment at hard labor for not less than
/ five years or both.
I The question of charging the four
men arrested in the District has caused
some discussion in the district attor-
neys Office since mere possession or
transportation Of liquor is no longer an
ofense.
Taken to Court.
| Today the corporation counsel's
Office. which formerly had disclaimed
any right or duty to try liquor offenses.
| brought the quartet arrested yesterday
into the District of Columbia branch
of the court
Judge John P. Mcmahon wanted to
know why the men were brought in on
the District charge. He wanted to
know, further. what the charge "un-
bonded liquor meant. Nobody seemed
to know Hart was called in and after
some explanation he disclosed the diff
ference in the charges.
Todays four defendants-A. P. Du-
gan. $500 block New Hampshire ave-
nue.: William r. Bragg and Myra
street southwest, and Frank c. Will
liams Alexandria-all pleaded not
guilty to the District charge and were
held under bond for jury trials later in
the month. Two others were arrested
by police last night but no papers we're
| filed.
To add to this mornings confusion,
Dugan. the Braggs and williams
seemed to have trouble finding the
courts in which they were to be ar
raigned, and when some Of them failed
to answer in McMahon's court he sent
for their bondsmen and delivered an
admonition to the effect that I'VE are
starting new era in this liquor busi-
ness and I'm not going to start out
on new law by looking all over the
building for people under bond or
their bondsmen."
From the general tone of opinions
voiced by court attaches today. all
eight defendants, whose exact status is
now unknown, could be charged under
both the District license law and the
Federal tax law.