The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1918-04-02
VALIDITY OF
LIQUOR LAW
NOW up TO
HIGH COURT
Evansville Case to Test Con-
stitutionality Of Indiana
Bone Dry Law Before the
Supreme Bench.
ARGUMENTS ARE HEARD
(By Associated Press)

(By Associated PreSs)
INDIANAPOLIS. April 2.-The Indi-
ana supreme court today heard argu-
ments in the case Sled by the F. w.
Cook Brewing company against Edgar
Schmitt. chief of police at Evansville,
to test the constitutionality of the In
diana statewide prohibition law,
which is to take effect at midnight to-
night.
The request Of attorneys in a case
filed in Lake county to test the law,
but on different grounds than the
Evansville case to be heard today al
so. was taken under advisement by
the court until the end of the argu-
ment in the Evansville suit at noon.
The Lake county case, filed by re-
tan liquor interests, has not been
br1efed as yet, the lawyers said, but
they desired to make their oral arg,l-
ments with the permission to file writ
ten briefs later. The law was held to
be constitutional in Lake county.
Reviews History of Case.
When the court took up the Evans
Vile case in which Judge Hostetter
OF the Vanderburgh superior court de-
ciared the law unconstitutional, Phil
fpp Gould, one of Schmltts attorneys,
opened the arguments. He explained
briefly the status of the case from
the time it was filed until 1t reached
the supreme court and stated the
questions involved as he saw them.
and then proceeded to consider deci.
s1ons by the supreme court of the
state In 1856, and on which the "wets"
relied In their arguments to the lower
court at Evansville
He attempted to show why they do
not apply to the present day saying
the state prohibition law passed in
1855 and decided to be invalid had GER
tain provisions which the present law
does not contain and was So. written
that the void section could not be de-
clared invalid without affecting the
entire law.
Court Room Crowded.
Each side had one hour in which to
present its arguments.
the court room was crowded and
many stood about the entrance un-
able to get in to hear the arguments.
The law provides that the state
shall become dry" after today. Un-
less the supreme court should give a
decision Immediately after the argu-
ments, something it seldom or ever
has done In this state, the law will
take effect, and the intoxicating liquor
business will have to suspend at least
. until the court makes its ruling, and
whether 1t ever resumes depends on
the courts action on the law
Judges Ask Questions.
During the arguments in the case
from Evansville the attorneys repre-
senting the brewing company were
asked number Of questions by Judge
Larry and Townsend. One of the
questions Judge Larry asked, was how
the lawyers attacking the law recon-
cdled the decision Of the supreme
court that the local option laws of the
state were constitutional with the the
ory the "wets" said the Beebe case
set forth.
The answer was that in the local
option and other liquor laws held to
be valid by the supreme court since
1856, the legislature had done what
the courts said in the Beebe case
should be done, namely allowed the
people to decide what they wanted.
The lawyers for the brewing COM
panies also said there was a distinc-
ton between regulating the manufac-
ture and the sale at retail Of intoxi-
eating liquor.
The arguments in the Evansville
case were completed when court ad-
JOurned at noon. The court an
nounced it would hear the arguments
ofN the case from Lake county this
afternoon.
y One hour was allotted to each side.
the arguments beginning at 1:30
o'clock. The Lake county case pre-.
sents the attacks of the retail inter.
est on the law, while the Evansville
case presented the contention of the
manufacturers OF intoxicating liquors.
All n llllllR III AEA