Evening journal., 1919-08-08
Wine firm STARTS
fight ON DRY Law
Suit Filed in New York At
tacks Measure as Un-
constitutional
CALLS THE ACT
CONFISCATlON

NEW YORK, Aug. s.-Suit was be
gun yesterday in the Federal District
Court in behalf Of the wine making IN
duslry, which seeks TO set aside the
war prohibition law as unconstitution-
/ al The bill Of complaint represents
the first attack on the law by vine ana
vineyard and wine interests. The Dlll
Of complaint represents the first attack
on the law by vineyard and wine IN
iercsls. Among the averments Is one
that the law threatens to conhscate
physical property Of wine growers and
manufacturers i'm this country worth
si25. 100000 and throw out OF employ
meni 10000 persons who receive SleVO,-
GOO each year in wages.
The plaintiffs are sylvester Scatens,
William II. Lawson and A. julius Pc
relI-Nllnettl, co-partners. The suit Is
ddirected against Francis G. carey
United states attorney, and William II.
Edwards, collector Of Internal Revenue
for the Second District OF New YORK.
samuel Seabury is counsel for the
plaintiffs.
Accompanying the bill Is an order, re-
lurnable August II, requiring the de-
PENDANTS 10 appear and show cause Why
rth-. should not be enioined from en-
forcing the war prohibition bill.
The complaint attacks the constitu-
tonalily OF the law on issues raised IN
connection with the unsuccessful effort
i'm behnf Of The brewers OF beer TO set
li aside. The statute is alleged TO be
unconstitutional because IL threatens
TO connscste property without due pro-
cess OF law and because 10 was enacted
as a war emergency measure at a time
when the war In all respects save teoh-
nicsl relations was over.
Il is understood that the bill will
serve TO raise issues that have not hith-
eri0 figured i'm litigation Of this kind
What these issues are could not be
learned yesterday at the office OF Mr..
Seabury. 10 is thought unlikely that
litigation that is bound TO be expensive
would be entered into without new is
sues subsequent 10 the failure OF the
brewers suits in the Federal District
Court and in the United States Federal
Court OF Appeals.
Scatena. Lawson & Perelli, the firm
uamed, have a vineyard in California
worth $4,000. three wineries In that
state worth 100000 and New York
ofllce az iS6 Greene street They sold
Wine worth more than Si50OO00 hast
year and paid more than S2J000O In
federal taxes.
An affidavit Of Perelli-Minetii Is at
iached 60 the order iO show cause. He
lives in iIealdsburg, Cal, and has been
manufacturing and selling wine In the
United Si1ies for twenty years. lie as
seris that the law ruins The wine indus
fry because there is not practical value
for the provision permitting the manu-
fscture Of wine for export. Wine can
not be profitable exported, he asserts,
because 70 can be manufactured cheaper
in foreign countries than here.
The AFFIDAVIT contains a detailed dis
cussion Of the situation at the time
when The food stimulation bill to which
the war prohibition bill is attached
was enacted November q, 1918, ten
days after the armlstice had been
signed.
The law prohibits the manufacture Of
wine. except for sacramental purposes
and exported after July 4, 1919 The
plaintiffs say that az the close Of busi-
ness June 30 they had in stock 10000
gallons Of marketable and salable wine
worth about sJJO.0O0.