The Birmingham age-herald., 1909-01-10
FIGHT BEGINS ON
 PROHIBITION LAW
Injunction Is Asked Against
 States Enforcement
BY COOK BREWING co.
Attorney General Garber Will Conclude Argument for the State Tomorrow. Decision Is Expected Early
 In the Week
By HERvEY w. LAIRD.

Montgomery January s.-(special.)-Al-
 leging that the state prohibition law Is
 invalid, as measured by the constitution
 of the state. with special reference to
 section 64, lawyers for the Cook Brew ! ing company of Evansville, Ind, today began an attack upon the statute that is expected to run into every avenue of ] effort that is likely to end in the break i ing up of the inhibition against the legal sale of liquor as 1t now exists. The petition is in the United States court for the Middle district of Alabama, f Judge Thomas c. Jones presiding, and Is brought by Troy, Watts & fletcher, and Lee Well of Montgomery. The case is brought against the attorney general of the state and the solicitor of Mont gomery county, the application being for an injunction to restrain the state from enforcing the liquor laws, the effect of which enforcement is to bring great loss to the plaintiff in the state and to de- stroy a business that has been built up at cost of Sloo.oo0 and is now worth that amount.
 The state is represented by Attorney General Garber, Assistant Attorney Gen eral Thomas w Martin. and Messrs. Hol- loway and Brown, the last named being the attorneys for the Law and Order league. Denial of the allegations is made by the state in toto. It is held that the bill is valid, that the courts of the state have so said and that the authorities all sustain this contention. It is also held that the statute is in line with the police rights of the state, that it Is not subject to restraint by the federal court because 1t is penal in it's nature and cannot be attacked in this kind of litigation.
 Mir. Veil Opens.
 The opening address was made by MT. Veil for the complainant. He took the position that the court has Jurisdiction, that the law is invalid and that the ef- feet is to bring about great loss to his clients. a fact that fully justifies the court in Injunction issue when well set up. He cited many cases to show that the court had so held, notably the railroad rate suits now pending in the circuit court of appeals, and out of the court now hearing the arguments.
 In arguing for the petitioners MT. Well said that section 64 of the constitution provides that every amendment to a bill must be set out in full, which is not the case with this act. He also said that the measure had a great many other weaknesses, which he proceeded to bring out. He read the code on the enactment of laws and quoted from a lot of cases against the present status of the bill
 It was also presented by MT. Well that his client had spent in all more than $l0O,- 600 to build up a business in the state, which was being destroyed. and the losses are in the neighborhood of that amount each year He had come into the state is all good faith, believing that if his money is spent that his rights will be protected. The state is due him protec- tion in the enactment and enforcement of only valid laws.
 Martin for the State.
 The opening address for the state was made by Thomas W. Martin, assistant attorney general, who had been spend ing a great deal of time lately in gather ing data and information. Among the early offerings of the state was an affi- dayit of the secretary of state that the Cook Brewing company had withdrawn from the state in January, 1908, and since that time had had no legal status In the state Thus it was shown the argument was that the company had no rights not given by the interstate commerce laws, which have not been taken away
 It Is argued by the state that after all the plaintiff Is not seeking benefit for it. self, but the right for its customers to sell liquors. In other words, 1t is mak- ing contention for rights 1t has not had for more than a year and does not now seem to want for its own use, the only effect being to legalize traffic that will set others to work again. This argument was considered a hard blow for the pe- titioners, it being suggested that if the retail men want the law changed they will have the remedy in the state courts by mandamus otherwise.
 State Has Full Power.
 The argument of the state is that 1t has full power under the constitution of the United States and the rulings of the supreme court of the nation to control the traffic in the state. That mach has been conceded as its police powers. It is also held that the statute being a penal one and in line with such police power. there is no place for the federal court. The state further argues that there is no reason to believe that the law Is bad, that the highest court of the state has examined it and found it good and the whole weight of testimony is against any sort of doubt. The weaknesses pointed out are not of such value as to invalidate the law and the passage was such as to make the act eHuTtly Sdle III tHo dHHdlS of the we'll established acts. It is also denied that the complainants have any property rights.
 Court Room Crowded. The court room was crowded when the | time came for the case to be called and the greatest interest was shown. All sorts | of horseback opinions were to be found on | the outside, the trend being very much along the line of the views of the speaker. | A large number of liquor men were in l the room and they took a great delight | in the speeches of the men who are work | ing hard to get back again their rights | to sell liquors and beers and provide the means to pay rents for the saloon build ings they have in the most part retained possession of
 | At o'clock the court adjourned, in the midst of the states defense by Gar ber who will be given an opportunity on l Monday to continue and complete his ar guments to be followed by Counsel Troy | for the complainant.
 1 It is probable that the decision of Judge Jones will be rendered early next week.