Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T14:55:42.347Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Prohibition Repeal Upon the Liquor Treaties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

Edwin D. Dickinson
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial Comment
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , January 1934 , pp. 101 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1934

References

1 Conventions for prevention of smuggling of intoxicating liquors are now in force between the United States and Great Britain, signed Jan. 23, 1924 (43 U. S. Stat. L. 1761); Norway, signed May 24, 1924 (43 ibid., 1772); Denmark, signed May 29, 1924 (43 ibid., 1809); Germany, signed May 19, 1924 (43 ibid., 1815); Sweden, signed May 22, 1924 (43 ibid., 1830); Italy, signed June 3, 1924 (43 ibid., 1844); Panama, signed June 6, 1924 (43 ibid., 1875); Netherlands, signed Aug. 21, 1924 (44 ibid., 2013); Cuba, signed March 4, 1926 (44 ibid., 2395); Spain, signed Feb. 10, 1926 (44 ibid., 2465); Prance, signed June 30, 1924 (45 ibid., 2403); Belgium, signed Dec. 9, 1925 (45 ibid., 2456); Greece, signed Apr. 25,1928 (45 ibid., 2736); Japan, signed May 31, 1928 (46 ibid., 2446); Poland, signed June 19, 1930 (46 ibid., 2773); and Chile, signed May 27, 1930 (46 ibid., 2852). Most of these conventions are also printed in the Supplements to this journal, Vol. 18 (1924), pp. 127,186,197; Vol. 19 (1925), pp. 6, 8, 9, 113,115; Vol. 21 (1927), pp. 72,116; Vol. 22 (1928), p. 167; and Vol. 23 (1929), p. 61.

The text quoted in this comment is that of the convention with Great Britain. In so far as the articles relevant to this comment are concerned, the several conventions are drafted in substantially identical terms. See this journal, Vol. 20 (1926), p. 340. See also this journal, Vol. 20 (1926), pp. I l l , 444; Vol. 21 (1927), p. 505; and Vol. 27 (1933), p. 305.

2 273 U. S. 593, 618; Annual Digest, 1925-1926, Case No. 110; commented on in this journal. Vol. 21 (1927), p. 505.

3 273 U. S. 593, 619.

4 262 U. S. 100; this journal, Vol. 17 (1923), p. 563; Annual Digest, 1923-1924, Case No. 57; commented on in this Jottrnal, Vol. 17 (1923), p. 504.