The daily Gate City and constitution-Democrat. (Keokuk, Iowa) 1916-1922, 1919-12-15
WAR PROHIBITION
CONSTITUTIONAL.
Continued from page.2.)

sense.
Second-Did the act become vol
by the passing of the war emergenc,
before the commencement Of thes'
suits? 1t is conceded that the mer'
cessation of hostilities under thu
armistice did not abridge or suspend
the power of congress 10 resort II
prohibition OF the liquor traffic as. I
means Of increasing our war cfh
cheney; that the support and care o.
the army and navy during demobili
cation was within the war emer
gency; and that, hence, the act was
valid when passed. The contention
is that between the date or its enact
rhent and the commencement OF
these suits it had become evident
that hostilities would not be resumed !;
that rehabilitation had been effect
led; that thereby the war emergency
was removed: and that when the
emergency ceased the statute became
Void.
| ITO establish that the emergency
had PASSED, statements and acts of
the president and Of other executive
lofticers were adduced; some of them
antedating the enactment of the
statute herein question. There are
statements of the president TO the
effect that the war has ended and
peace has come; tina. certain war
agencies and activities should be dis
continued; that our enemies are i'm
potent to renew hostifities and that
the objects of the act mere in cues
ton have been satisfied in the demo
bilization of the army ana navy.
1T Is shown that many war time
activities have been suspended; that
vast quantities OF war materials have
been disposed Of; that trade with
Germany has been resumed, and that
the censorship of postal, telegraphic
and wire communications has been
removed. But we also have the fact
that since these statements were
! made and these acts were done, con-
gress, on October %, 1919, passed,
over the presidents veto, the ma
tional prohibition act, which, in
making further provision for the adj
ministration of the war time prohi.
bition act, treats The war as continu.
ing and rehabilitation as incom.
plete; that the senate on November
10, 1919. refused to ratify the treaty
OF peace with Germany; that under
the provisions of the Lever act. the
president resumed on October 80,
1919, the control of the fuel supply,
which he had relinquished partly on
January 81. 1919. and partly on Feb |
ruary 20, 1918: that he is still oper-
ating the railroads, of which control |
mad been taken as war measure; /
and that on November IS, 1919, he |
vetoed senate bill GAL because IL |
diminished that control; that pur
suant to the act of March 4, 1919, he |
continues to control, by means Of the |
food administration and grain corpo-
ration, the supply of grain and wheat I
flour; that through the United States /
sugar equalization board, incorpo
rated, he still regulates the price OF
sugar; that in his message to con-
gress on December 2, 1919, he urgent
ly recommended the further extension
OF six months Of the powers of the +
food administration; that as com
he still keeps a part
Of the army in enemy occupied terri
tory and another part in Siberia, and
that he has refrained from issuing
he proclamation declaring the termi-
lation OF Rehabilitation for which
his act provides.
No principle Of our constitutional
aw is more firmly established than ]
hat this court may not, in passing !
lpon the validity of statute, inquire \
INTO the motives Of congress. Nor j
nay the court inquire into the wis (
lom OF the legislation. Nor may 1t
'ass upon the necessity for the ex- \
'rcise OF power possessed, since 4
he possible abuse of power is not
n argument against its existence. [
That statute valid when enacted
lay cease to have validity owing to +
Change of circumstances has been E
ecognized with respect to state laws,
/ several cases. iS
"Conceding then, for the purpose of
lie present case that the question of
he continued validity of the war pro-
ibitton act under the changed cir A
instances depends upon whether it
ppears that there is no longer any
ecessity for the prohibition OF the
lie of distilled spirits for beverage
1t remains to be said that RI
4 obvious grounds every reasonable
tendment must be made in favor of
$ continuing validity. E,
"Third-Was the act repealed by a.,
70 adoption of the eighteenth amend
ent? By the express terms of the III
nendment the prohibition thereby 10
,posed becomes effective after one al,
ar from its ratification Ratifica-
ID was proclaimed on Jan 29, 1919. III
ne contention is that as the amend III
ent became on it's adoption an in 1T
grail part of the constitution, its inn
lcations are as binding as It's Ian. tic
age; that In postponing the effect
tie OF the prohibition the amend de
emit implied guaranteed to manufac- to
rers and dealers in intoxicating Or
uors a year of grace; and that not Ilef
ly was congress prohibited thereby M,
'nh ehactlng meanwhile new prohibi- sci
" legislation but also that the then do
isting restriction imposed by the alb
rhine prohibition act was removed.
The contention is clearly unsound. Ina