Webster City freeman. [volume] (Webster City, Hamilton County, Iowa) 1884-1946, 1919-12-15
States Bound, Too.

AsSesSc hSOshusssS AVVs
In passing, however, Associate JUS
tice Brandess did hold that the phohibi-
tion amendment was binding on the
states as well as the federal govern.
n1ent.
The court entirely reversed the con
tentiOn Of the ''wets' that the war time
prohibition was outside the war time
powers of congress and pointed out
that war time control of food and rail
ways still was in effect.
The decision added the final mile
stone to the long fight to make the
country dry.
After giving the decision today. the
court recessed for the holidays and
does not meet again until carly in Jan
-AiHcndmenr Will become effective Jan.
16.
CpOns the courts decision on the pro-
hibltiell enforcement law, which is ex-
I,ected early Iii January. will depend
whetle~ the federal government has at
hand any legal measures to make the
amendment effective.
Were Three Appeals.
COnstitutionality of the war time
prohibition and the prohibition enforce
mcnt laws was attacked in the supreme
court in three different appeals. One
came from Kentucky where the former
statute was held invalid. Two came
from New York where both acts were
sustained.
Besides the millions Of dollars invest
cd in brewery and distillinG plants the
decision affects approximately 0.OOO.-
OOO gallons of whiskey valued alone at
between $1OO,OOO,OOO and $2OO,OOO GOO
according to internal revenue officials
estimates.
The cases Of the Kentucky Distiller-
les and Warehouse company of Louis
vile, KY. and DryfOos, Blum & Com
pany OF New York We're virtually iden-
teal and resulted from efforts to COM
pei the government to release wMskey
from bond. The third case, an appeal
of Jacob Rupert, Il brewer of New
York. involved authority under the
acts to manufacture beer containing
2.1J per cent alcohol.
"Net" Argument.
In arguing the cases before the SUI
prelne court on Nov. 20 and y, Elihu
Root and others appearing in opposi-
tion to the prohibition acts contended
to prohibit the sale of intoXicants with
III a state except under its war power
that war time prohibition was uncOnsti-
tutiOnal because congress hud no power
which had ceased: that the act con-
fiicted with the fifth constitutional
amendment prohibiting the taking Of
private property without just compen-
satiOn and that the war had terminal
cd, making the act obsolete and in
valid. 1t was also cOntended that the
volstcad law tthc prohibition enforce
ment act) by fixing one half of one
per cent as tlle maximum amount OF al
cohol in beverages. established a new
standard for intOXicants. Mr. Root
also scOntended that the constitutional
prohibition amendment allowed liquor
dealers wear Of grace" to enable
them to readjust their affairs to meet
changed conditions but despite the
amendment. which he argued was vir-
tnally n contract between congress and
the states, the liquor business had been
constantly heckled with legislation by
prOhibitiOnists in congress seeking to
advance the time for national prOhibi-
tiOn.
Position of Drys.
These contentious were generally re-
futed by Solicitor General King and
William l.. FriersOn. assistant attorney |
general appearing Oh the governments
behalf, who took the position that the
prohibition act is still in full force
owing to the senate's delay in ratifying !
the peace treaty, that a state OF war
technically exists. that national pro- |
hibition was necessary for the winning
Of the war and the establishment later
Of normal peace conditions and that
such legisla tiOn came within the war
powers Of congress.
In declaring the war time prohibition
act uncOnstitutional Federal District
Judge Walter-f;vans in Louisville, held
the act cOnfiicted with the fifth amend |
ment and enjOined internal revenue ofii-
cials from preventing the Kentucky
Distillcries and Warehouse company