The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1909-05-02
Restralning Order Is
Sought.
COOK BREWING COMPANY
UNDISMAYED BY DEFEAT
"a Amendment to the Original Bill
Is Filed.
\ pEaxht .. rails Occasion is BASED ON an
Alleged vislatie. Of she Fosr-
teeath Amendment to
- Federal Censti-
txtion-

~ Undismayed by their defeat in the
lCfrcuit and Supreme Courts OF Ala
Mama, counsel for the +. w. Cook Brew
mG Company. that has waged such
stubborn warfare on the State wide
4 prohibition law. started another legal
move yesterday in the Federal Court
there. They filed an amendment to the
l1riginal bill that was argued at such
length In mid-winter. seeking an in
junction against the Attorney General
and Solicitor Phil Stern, Restraining
- enforcement of the prohibition law.
The renewal OF the fight in the United
states Court before Judge Thomas @.
Jones. is based this time, on an alleged
ly&olAtion of the Fourteenth Amendment
ttD the Federal Constitution. The fight
fhefore hinged on several grounds, but
kthis phase was not insisted on, In Just
}<he manner, that 1t Is brought UP this
i&sme
& 1t will be recalled that the last ruling
~ Judge Jones was in effect to deny
f1he application for an injunction. but
- sf1la hold open the courts doors. for
tepy future motion In case the State
k6ces not ofrer n reasonable despatch Of
mitigation. by which a test could be
made of the constftutionality OF the
lpwohibition law. This test was carried
fthrough without hitch and the State
twas allowed to determine In its own
iccurt, the question OF whether the law
lxsas passed In accordance with the pro-
visions OF the state Constitution. BY
shis test. the compiainants were the
l1oser.
Amendmenx Faled.
BY the amendment filed yesterday,
uToy. Watts q Letcher the counsel,
allege that wouid-be customers OF the
Cook Brewing Company are being de-
MED the due process and the equal
protection OF the law in that different
spunishments are liable to be melted
out 10 various persons In different parts
% the State. According to the new
allegations. there are more than a
lhnndred localities in Alabama where
Ipunishment for violation of the prohi-
sbtfion law may be dealt in varying
degrees. Such O possibility or option
rests with the courts, II Is averred. in
the locality OF the violation, because
Eby one provision Of the general prohi-
lbAtion act all previous prohibition acts
saSc left In force concurrsntly with
k&se Carmichael BILL or the last general
prohibition law. e
II 10 urged that this is distinctly a
denial OF the equal protection OF the
laws as guaranteed In the Fourteenth
-Mmeudment to the Federal Constitu-
tfDn. A man may be punished now
St isxarszzed, In one Alabama point by
f0He me era Imprisonment aor yiolnftne
[tis law. whereas Tor a criminal aci
IoG the same degree. . second offender
60 another place II liable 10 punish
Ruent by a diffsrent nne. higher or low
-. and by Imprisonment for q greater
Tor less number Of years.
The relation Of the Cook Brewing
Company TO the amendment, Is that
theFa are prospective customers to-
Eethsr with the good will of the COR
perAficn In Alabama. at state by such
Genial OF equal protection. due process
81 law etc. Wherefore, preliminary
tmlnncticn 10 prayed for pending the
discrimination OF the damages already
'e1ffersd by the complainant and for q
inermanent injunction against the State
and county officers at subsequent
cate. ~
The averments in the amendment 10
tAe bill were In the brief Of the ap.
lpeliant when the case went to the
anprene Court of Alabama from Dallas
Comfy q few weeks ago. 1t Is said
however. that the opinion Of that court
lon the point about the Fourteenth
Amendment was not satisfactory. III
lxacf. It "a said the point was not passed