Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1916-10-15


appellate courts in Il dozen states
where the question has com. up for
determination. and quotes the Supreme
court OF the United states in support
Of his contention tha, prohibition Of
nonaicoholir malt liqhors Is valid ex-
"rcisc OF the police power Of the state
and not in contravcntion Of the four
tecn,h amendment To the Federal Con
Sutution. which prohibits the taking
of property without due process Of
, Jaw
MOST IMPORTANT DECISION
As TO MAPP ACT ENIrOItt' 'f;MENT
Til. decision az to the status Of ma II
liquors * the most important the legal
department OF tho State has yet rem
dcrcd relative tc uhc provisions Of the
Mapp act. and cmcctually sets at rest
the fear Of officers charged with the
laws enforcement that numerous near
beer saloons scattered throughout the
state would add materially 10 their
difficulties in enforcing the prohibition
laws
No sooner than the Prohibition Com
missioner had taken the oath of Office
/; number of concerns ,nnnuFacturing
malt liquors. made without fermenta-
i!on and containing absolutely no
alcohol employed agents throughout
the State to handle their product.
Commissioner Peters then submitted
to the Attorney General the question
OF whether the law permitted the sale
OF such liquors.
The Supreme Court of Appeals in an
opinion voiced by Judge buchanan. had
already decided that the term ''inait
liquors includes both the iutoSica ting
and the nonintoXicating sort. and III
, light Of this fact. the Acknowledgement
held that the General Assembly Of vir-
cinia. in prohibiting their sale. meant
To do just what is Expressed in tho
language OF the statute
QUOTES FROM DECISION
BY JUSTICE HUt:HE:S
The next question which the Attor-
ncy-Cieneral had to decide was whether
the state had the power under the
, Federal Constitution TO prohibit the
sale OF mai, beverage which was no;
Intoxicating. This same question had
already arisen in the State OF Missis-
Sippi. and the Supreme Court OF that
! state upheld the mississippi statute.
an appeal was taken TO the Supreme
Court OF tho United states on the
ground that the prohibiting Of the sale
/ OF = perfectly harmless. nutritious malt
liquor was a violation of the fourteenth
/ amendment. against taking liberty or
property without due process OF law.
The case was tried on an agreed
state OF facts. wherein il was stated
that the drink was wholesome and
nutritious and did not contain alco-
hol or saccharine matter and that
its taste and odor were distinctive. and
| that its appearance is such that it
would not probably be mistaken for
any Intoxicating liquor
Justice Hughes, now candidate of
the Republican party for President.
delivered the opinion OF the courts in
the case OF Extract and I Co vs..
Lynch. 22G L. s.. lS+-lS7. said
1T is also we'll established that when
state. exercising its recognized
authority. undertakes to suppress what
ii is free TO regard rs public evil.
il may adopt such measures having
reasonable relation to that end as il
may deem necessary in order /" make
its action effective.
MAY PROHIBIT TRAFFIC.
IN NONAI.COHOLIC LlQtOHS
1T does not follow that because Il
transaction, separately considered is
innocuous, 1t may not he included i'll
II prohibition the scope Of which is
.
tive Judgment to accomplish "a purpose
within the admitted power OF the gov
crnment. II is competent for
the Legislature to recognize the
difficulties bcsetting the administration
of laws aimed ut the prevention OF
:raflic in intoXicantS. II prohibited,
I among other things. the sale Of malt
. liquors. In thus dealing with a class
OF beverages which. in general are
regarded as Intoxicating. ii WAS not
bound to resort to discrimination
with respect to ingredients and pro-
ccsses of manufacture which. in the
endcavor TO eliminate innocuous bcv-
erages from the condcmna ton. would
facilitate subterfuges and frauds and
fetter the enforcement of the law
Thus the opinion of Attorney Gem
I cral Pollard to the effect that the
term 'all malt liquors includes non
intoxicating malt liquors is fortified
by the decision of the Supreme Court
OF Virginia and the decisions OF a dozen
other States, and tho Attorncy-Gen-
erals opinion that prohibition of nom
alcoholic malt liquors is valid cX-
crcise OF the police power of the State
Is founded on the decision of the high
est court in the country.
The theory upon which a State may
prohibit traffic IN nonalcoholic malt
liquors liz that tho sale OF such liq-
uors may I've used ns a subterfuge and
render the enforcement OF the law
against tho sale OF intoS IcotinG liquors
more diflcult.
OSE QUART \ MONTH rs 30
MB CONSTRUED LITERALLY
Making uso OF his prerogative to
rule OH tho nicetlcs OF language and.
at tho same time. hitting tho variety