Richmond daily register. (Richmond, Madison County, Ky.) 1917-1978, 1919-12-15
Liquor interests Handed A Solar
Plexus Blow BY Decisio3
Of Country's Highest
Tribunal
tpy Associated Press,

tlf y sS'AAset sOep - ~, ->>~' J@~'
The Supreme Court today held
wartime prohibition constitu-
tional. The opinion was read by
Associate Justice Brandcis, who
said the government did not APP
propriate liquor by stopping its
domestic sale, as the way is left
open for exporting it. The opin-
ion declared the signing of the
armistice did not abrogatc the
war powers of Congress, and it
called attention to the continued
control of the railroads and reas-
sumption Of powers by the gov
crnment relative to coal and sug-
ar under war acts to show that
the government continues to ex-
ercise the various war powers de-
spite the signing of the armistice.
The court declared the consti-
tutional prohibition amendment
is binding on the federal govern
ment as well as the states and SUI
percedes state laws.
1t said there is no basis for the
contention that President Will
sons statement in his message
vetoing the prohibition enforce
ment act, that the war had come
to an end, was a proclamation an
nouncing the termination of the
war.
The court confined itself en-
tirely to the wartime prohibition
act and took no action on the So
called beer cases, which attacked
the constitutionality of the prohi-
bition enforcement act.
The opinion was on all cases
from New York and Kentucky,
and was unanimous. In the
Kentucky case injunctions were
dissolved, restraining revenue Of
fciais from interfering with the
removal from bond of about TO-
100000 gallons of whisky, valued
at approximately $75,000,000 held
by the Kentucky Distilleries and
Warehouse Company of Louis
vile.
Thus vanished the hopes Of
many for a "wet" holiday time
and added one of the final mile
stones to the long fight to make
the country dry
The constitutional prohibition
amendment becomes effective
January 10th. Until then war
time prohibition is expected tc
keep the country dry.
Constitutionality of the war
time prohibition and the the pro-
hibition enforcement laws was at
tackled in the Supreme Court in
three different appeals. One was
from Kentucky. where the form
ers statute was held invalid. Two
came from New York where both
acts were sustained.
Besides the millions of dollars
invested in brewery and distilling
plants, the decision affects ap-
proximately 100000 gallons of
whiskey valued alone at between
$lOO,OOO,O00 and $20O,000,0O0, ac-
cording to internal revenue Off
cials' estimates.
The cases ofthe Kentucky Dis
tillerics and Warehouse Compa-
ny, of Louisville, and Dryfoos,
Bum & Company. of New York,
were virtually identical and r:
suited from efforts to compel. the
government to release whiskey
from bond. The third case. ar
appeal Of Jacob Rupert, a brew
eriof New York, involved author
ity under the acts to manufacture
beer containing 2.75 per cent all
cohol.
In arguing the cases before the
Supreme Court on Nov. 10th and
2lst, 1919, Elihu Root annd others
appearing in opposition to the
prohibition acts, contended that
wartime prohibition was uncon-
stitutional because Congress had
no power to prohibit the sale Of
intoxicants within a state except
under its war power which had
ceased; that the act conhicted
with the Fifth constitutional
amendment prohibiting the taking
of private property without just
compensation and that the war
had Terminated, making the act