The Birmingham age-herald., 1918-01-25
BREWERS POLICY ADVERTISEMENTS
 LEGAL IN ALABAMA
Supreme Court Holds Pub lication Does Not Come Within Anti-Liquor Ad-
 vertising Laws

Montgomery, January 1f.-NopeSidio Alabama newspapers may continue to publish advertisements of the new pol icy of the United States Brewers as- sociation it's members from the defense of the liquor dealers The supreme court Thursday held that such adver- tisements do not violate the antiliquor advertising law of 1915, which pro- hibits the publication of advertising or liquors wines and beers in the state It ruled that the declaration of the policy of the brewers organization was mere political propaganda whien any person or organization mas right to carry on within the bounda- ries of Alabama.
 SUIT AGAINST NEWSPAPERS
 The decision came in the case Of the state against the Montgomery Ad- vertiser and the ruling of the Mont gcmery circuit court in dissolving the temporary injunction obtained by for mer Attorney General William L. Mar tin was affirmed. Chief Justice John C. Aderson, who wrote the opinion, was sustained in the conclusion of Justices Mayfield, Sayre and Gardner. while Judge Gardner in concurring opinion stated that he did not indorse all said in the majority opinion.
 Justice Mcclellan prepared dis senting opinion in which he main tained that the law prohibited such advertising as the brewers seek to carry on in Alabama. His pc sition was sustained by Justices Somerville and Thomas, the court thus dividing four and three on the question.
 CAN CARRY ON PROPAGANDA
 The final decision means that mem bers of the United States Brewers as- sociation will carry on an advertising propaganda in certain newspapers during the year which will support their contention that America now has opportunity of settling the liquor question by adopting light wines and beer and prohibiting the sale or drink ing of hard liquors. Former Attorney General Martin brought injunction proceedings against the Birmingham News, Birmingham Age-Herald and Montgomery Times, but the Advertiser case became a test of the issue.
 OPINION OF JUSTICE
 Chief Justice Anderson, in the ma jority opinion, said: "The state through it's attorney general, contends that the publication in question vio- lates the act of 1915, page 57, common ly known as the anti-advertising act, passed in aid of and connection with a general system of prohibitory laws enacted for the paramount purpose of
 promoting temperance and suppress ing the evils of intemperance.' The act in question prohibits the adver- tisement by methods there designated. including publication in any newspa- per of prohibited liquors or any of them or to advertise the manufacture. sale, keeping for sale or furnishing Of any of them, or the person from whom or the person or corporation from which. or the place wehere or tke price at which or the method by which the same or any of them may be ob- which. or the place where, or the price lists. order blanks, or other mat ter for the purpose of inducing or se- curing orders for such liquors.' while section deals with an advertisement or notice containing the picture of a brewery or receptacles represented as con Dtaining any of the prohibited liquors. This statute wss manifestly designed to prevent the citizens of Alabama from being informed by the methods or devices mentioned, from being reminded or informed how, where or from whom they could order liquors or beverages and not to throt- tie the press 80 as to prevent the pub lication of editorials or communica- tions discussing the prohibition or liquor question and wherein not even hint is given the citizens of Ala bama of the name or address of dealer or brewer or the name or brand of any liquor or beverage. NO INFORMATION ON LIQUOR
 The publication in question does not convey the slightest information to any citizen of the state that would aid him in ordering or securing prohibited liquors. It is a mere argument against distilled liquors and in favor of light beer and wines as compared herewith 1 and expresses the purpose of the United States Brewers association to divorce itself from the distillers and what their attitude is and shall be in the future with reference to national and state laws designed to promote temperance and it is not even signed by any particular brewer of dealer 1t Is no doubt true that the article is perhaps an attempt to popularize light wines and beer at the expense of distilled liquors. but it does not designate any brand or dealer or give 1 other information that would apprise any citizen of the state how or where he can get said light wines or beer It would require a rather strained con- struction of the statute to bring the publication in question within it's pro- hibitove influence either in letter or spirit. It is in the nature of a mere political propaganda and is no more an advertisement of prohibited liquors
 DASnin1r>