The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-01-12
All Arguments Have Been Concluded. COURT REC0NvENES TODAY
 AND DECISION EXPECTED Interest is at High Pitch in Out
 come of Case. Attorney General Gsrber Pleads Eaor- mous Consequences of An In- junction--Attscis Right of
 Brewing Company.

Continued from Saturday afternoon, the arguments In the petition of the Cook Brewing Company, of Evansville, Ind, for an injunction restraining the enforcement of the prohibition law, the case was pleaded before Federal Judge ending with the argument of D. 5. Troy. for the complainant, at 2:30 o'clock Monday afternoon.
 The case was submitted to Judge Jones, by the attorneys for both sides, on briefs. a consideration of which will probably bring a decision today or Wednesday morning. In adjourning court, 1t was called to meet today at 10 o'clock, when, 1t is more than likely. q decision will be rendered.
 The case was simplifed to a great degree during the arguments of Attor- ney General Garber, and D. s. Troy. on Monday, much of the purely technical being eliminated. Judge Jones ques- toned the attorneys frequently during the course of their talks, on one point and another, in regard to which he de- sired perfect elucidation. The plain queries simpiified the arguments to the comprehension of the layman, and will largely facilitate the arrival at de- cision.
 Especially was Attorney Troy, for the complainant, questioned closely by Judge Jones, the questions being ac- compa anied with requests for examples upon each recurrence. and hence the ar. guments of Troy were fraught with an exposition of his principles that resolv- ed the issue into a question of common sense Judgment.
 Judge and Counsel.
 Judge Jones, in his dialogues with Mir. Troy. dwelt upon the question of Section s4. of the State Constitution, which was claimed. by the petitioners for an injunction, to have been vioiated in the passage of the Carmichael bill. Section s4. which provided that each amendment to a law passed by tho Legislature, be entered at length on the journal, together with the record of votes for and against. Judge Jones stated that one known purpose of the section, in the minds of the Constitu- tional Convention, was prevention of any collision between legislator and clerk. that an undesirable amendment might not be tackled on the bill after It's passage by the legislators. without the knowledge of those enacting the original bill. This information as to the purpose of the section was volun- teered by Judge Jones after he had re- auested of MT. Troy an example as to wherein the failure of compliance in the section would invaIidate any bill passed, t3
 Attorney General Garber. for the State, opened the session on Monday with his argument, continued from the session of Saturday afternoon. Mir. Garber held the position, throughout his argument. that the particular conl- claimant in the bill. the Cook Brewing Company, was entitled to no redress either as to Injunction or otherwise, in- asmuch as, by it's own statements It had taken from the State it's agencies, and hence had no part in the business life of the State, paying no license in any shane. That the fact that the good will" which 1t had created heretofore, and which caused the sale or the pro" duct to hold up, should be termed an asset, he scoffed. contending that gooo will could not be held as an asset. IL had no "locus," or situation. 1t could not be specified strictly as existing in Alabama, he declared.
 DecryinE the designation of good will" as asset, and showing tnat .lt was admitted that beyond good will the Cook Brewing Company possessed nothing that could be harmed by the enforcement of the prohibition laws MT. Garber declared that the complain ants had no standing in the State or Alabama, and could not gain redress from any court. It Is not corpora ton, either foreign or domestic ne showed; 1t has no property within the of the state; 1t employs no agents or sellers h Alabama-and all this he held to show that the Cook Brewing Company could claim nothing from the state of Alabama, or from anr courts within it's boundaries.
 RecItea C0nsequenceH.
 He concluded his argument with a plea for protection against the demor- alIzation which, he contended, would be produced in Alabama by any blow to it's jaws. He declared that in case the pro- hibition law received the setback which would necessarily result from an injunction against it's enforcement, there would result a state of chaos, a triumph of lawlessness.
 D. s. Troy, for the complaints. closed with a lengthy argument, beginning at II o'clok, and holding forth until