KEGS AND BOTTLES NOW OUTLAWED
THE “BONE-DRIEST” ENFORCEMENT RULING—a “signal for war on home brew”—leading papers call the latest Prohibition decision of the United States Supreme Court, quoted at the close of this article. The Court’s verdict that kegs, bottles, corks, and whatsoever enters into prohibited liquor-making can be lawfully seized as contraband, raises wet press cohorts to a high pitch of resentment, and stirs great rejoicing among the dry contingent. “Prohibition wins in court again—but what a costly victory!” exclaims the wet Philadelphia Record, which continues:
“One may sell a pen without being liable if it should be used to commit forgery. One may market a flashlight without being chargeable for its employment in burglary. “But Prohibition is something else again. “To sell a keg or a demijohn may be a felony. To supply a customer with bottles, corks, and non-alcoholic malt extract is to become particeps criminis in any home brewing he may attempt. ” So rules the Supreme Court of the United States, unanimously. “And why not? Hasn’t it held that a hotel which fills a guest’s order for ginger ale and cracked ice becomes criminally accountable if he shoots something from the hip into that innocent mixture? “If the learned Justices had been so many propagandists for an aggressively wet organization, instead of impartial interpreters of the law, could they have set forth more vividly its grotesque requirements? “Nationally, the decision can not fail to widen and intensify the feeling against Prohibition.”
On the other hand, hear Miss Norma Camille Brown, associate editor of The National Inquirer and vice-president of the “Flying Squadron” Foundation, Indianapolis, speaking for both the dry paper and organization in this editorial, wired to THE LITERARY DIGEST:
“The Supreme Court has once again given the nation a vivid reminder that Prohibition is the law of the land. “In voicing the opinion of the Court to which not one dissent was recorded, Mr. Justice Holmes, as is his practise, moved swiftly to the essentials in the case, stating his conclusions with a precision that fairly cuts. “Interpreting the law with liberality to the end that the liquor traffic may be supprest, as the Volstead Law expressly directs, the decision has opened the way for a firm handling of one annoying source of violation. “Well may the dry forces welcome a test case on any provision of the Prohibition statutes. This great court of nine judges is loyal to the law, and Prohibition is law.”
Apparently it is not only a crime to sell such liquor paraphernalia, but “it is even a crime to possess them,” says the Baltimore Sun. Further,
“The mere fact that the Government’s agents have a suspicion is enough to warrant action on their part, and after that the burden of proof is on the owner. This decision opens the way for excesses and swineries on the part of the spies, snoopers, and agents provocateurs of the Prohibition unit, which even those worthies have hardly dreamed of.”
“While the wets unquestionably will consider the decision a ‘ dry one,’ they may find it difficult to dig up any very substantial counter legal arguments,” observes the Detroit Free Press. “The practical effect of the decision is another matter. That the ruling will accomplish much in the end toward promotion of the enforcement of Prohibition seems highly doubtful.” The Buffalo Courier-Express remarks:
“How distinction will be made between home brewers for their own use and home brewers for commercial and, therefore, illegal purposes remains to be seen. However, there is no need to worry about that for the present. For it appears that the cider press is safe. When, if ever, that is made subject to seizure, then we shall begin to see things happen.”
” The Supreme Court has consistently recognized the soul and purpose of the Eighteenth Amendment and recognized the plenary power of Congress to pass laws necessary for its enforcement,” the Philadelphia Bulletin reminds us, adding:
“It will be agreed that the ‘manufacture’ of canned goods in ordinary consideration, is inclusive of the canning, that the packing of various food preparations is, in common parlance, regarded as part of the process of manufacturing.”
Popular discussion has a tendency to overlook the specific form and content of the decision, suggests the Philadelphia Inquirer, and it points out the fact, overlooked by some papers, that the kegs and bottles are declared contraband only when intended for unlawful use:
“There is nothing unusual in declaring an act valid when committed for one purpose, and declaring the same act illegal when committed for another. “Mutilation of currency illustrates the point. Defacing a coin to make an ornament for personal adornment comes within the property rights of an individual, but defacing it by removing part of the metal and then returning it to circulation constitutes a fraud and is punishable.”
The Court’s decision upheld the seizure of fifty-seven truckloads of containers, barrels, bottles, corks, labels, cartons, etc., belonging to a Pittsburgh bottling concern, alleged to be property designed for the unlawful manufacture of liquors. It was contended by the defense that the “manufacture” of liquor ceased before it was bottled or placed in other containers. The Court ruled that, broadly, “manufacture” covers the whole process by which an article is made ready for sale. Justice Holmes’s opinion for the Court concludes:
“As the purpose of the Prohibition act was to `suppress the entire traffic,’ the act should be liberally construed to the end of this suppression, and so directs. The decisions under the revenue acts have little weight as against legislation under the afflatus of the Eighteenth Amendment. We are of opinion that the word was used in this looser way, and that if the empty containers and the other objects seized were offered for in such a mode as purposely to attract purchasers who wanted them for the unlawful manufacture, as we interpret the word, they were designed for that manufacture and could be seized.
Source: Literary Digest, May 17, 1930
Related 1920's Resources: