The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-01-03
Prohibition Attacked
 By Legal Procedure

t
 possible. As a matter of necessity. the light Is based in the Federal Court on the record. fnasmuch as the United States Supreme Court has passed on prohibition and decided that the States have the right to stop the sale of in- toxicating liquors as police protec- ton,
 The Federal Court case had it's in- caption at the Capitol when the agent of the Cook Brewing Company appear ed there and demanded license. which. of course, was refused. Tho bill in the court Is directed towards Attorney General A. N. Garber. County Solicitor Stern, Sherif Hood. and the Law and Order Leagues of the State, and the formal order from the Federal Court reads:
 order of Judge Jones.
 Tn the Circuit Court of the United
 of the Middle District of Ala
 bama.--F, W. Cook Brewing Com
 pany vs. Alexander M. Garber,
 ct al.---No 277. in Equity.
 The bill filed In this cause shaving been presented to the court, and motion made by the complainants for the issue of restraining order as prayed there- In, 1t Is ordered by the court that the hearing of said motion be set for Thursday. the 7th day of January. 1909, at ie a. m.. before the Court at Mont gomery, Alabama, and that the mar shal serve a copy of the motion on each of the defendants at once This January 2, 1909. Thomas G.sJones."
 J. T. Letcher of Watts. Troy < Letcher. left Saturday morning for Selma. where 1t Is said he would start the fight in Dallas County. Another member of the firm will go to Mobile Tuesday and Wednesday morning ap- pear in the courts there to spring the contest.
 Through several channels are the assaults at the General Prohibition Bill made. according to the complaint of the G. W. Cook Brewing Company, of Evansville. Ind. In one. the com plaint calls attention to the fact that in the bill the sale and use of liquor upon various occasions is allowable, as. for instance. for sacramental pur- poses, at certain feasts. etc. Hence. the complaint ayers. only a partial prohibition is effected. rendering the law. in sense a prohibition law, invalid.
 Again. 1t Is shown that the law does not purport to repeal or take the stand of any of the local option laws. under which several counties Of the state now rest; rather. 1t Is stated that the local option laws now in effect shall continue in effect. to be combined with the general prohibition bill. claiming that the two laws are not concomitants and that various con- flicts between the two can be found. as in the case of penalties. etc.. the complaint of the Cook Brewing Com pany seeks through this channel to assail the bill.
 Alleges UnconstitutionaI.
 Another channel through which un- constitutlonality is claimed is that of faulty records, and of failure to com ply with the requirements of the con- stitution in directing the bill and it's amendments through the Legislature. Several specific instances of failure to comply with the constitutional require ments are pointed out. The require ment is that no amendment shall be adopted unless entered in full upon the Journal of the House in which the bill is adopted
 Several amendment sections. with alterations. were not entered upon the House Journal before the bill was adopted it Is alleged. In this instance Section l2, section and section 10 are vited.
 The bill of complaint is lengthy, covering about sixteen typewritten pages. It announces that the F. w.. Coow Brewing Company. of Evans ville, Indiana, is subjected to heavy loss through the enforcement of the prohibitions bill, and that, believing, upon advice of it's counsel, that the law is invalid. 1t asks for temporary restraint placed upon Attorney Gen eral Garbsr. Solicitor Stern, Sheriff Hodd and the various Law and Order Leagues" of the state. that the en- forcement of the Prohibition Law may be in itself prohibited for time.
 The complainant speaks plainly in regard to his belief that the law is invalid. one section of the complaint reading:
 notwithstanding the presence of said purported enactment In said printed volume and its presence among said enrolled acts, plaintiff is advised by counsel. and upon such advice ayers that in fact and In truth said purport-