New Britain herald., 1919-07-23
DEALERS
 l LOSE TEST CASE
(Continued from First Page.) )

If the law be upheld over the objec- hons raised by the other grounds ot wthe demurrer, these furnish reason why the law should be set beyond the powers of congress and unconstltu- tional" opined that ''the prohibition Of the sale of intoxicating liquors through the exercise of the set power to levy war is within the right of con- Eress in the exercise of it's discretion
 Court Dismisses Third Ground. ~ Judge Chatfield dismisses the third ground of the demurrer that the war ] tine prohibition law contravenes ar ticle 10 of the amendment to the con- stitution, declaring that If congress had the power to enact this particular law for the purpose of conserving food it is no objection to an exercise of that power to say that it thereby Rccomplishes prohibition of the sale of alcoholic liquors. which under other amendments of the constitution Is left to legislation by the particular states
 In sustaining this position the court cited three preCedents. The first, re Kolleck GU. s. 526) related to a tax act for the raising of revenue which was upheld although the effect of the law was to prevent deception in the sGle of oleomargarine for butter and although the prevention of this traffic was assured to be one of the objects of passing the law"
 The second citation, that of MCCray vs. the United States C195 U. s. 27) maintained that "the lawful power of s congress may not be judicially restrained because of the results which arise from it's exercise or be- Ia tbve underlying the passage of the law"
 Other Precedents Quoted.
 The third precedent, that of Ham mer Vs. Dagensart (247 U. $. 251 at Page 269) declared the prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors ito be a prerogative of congress similar to that of declaring war.
 { The second and fifth grounds of the demurrer are set aside on the basis of United States supreme court decisions holding also that as "a mat ter of fact we are still at war with Austria and the army which has been ;, conducting the war with Germany and Austria is not in fact demobil- tzed."
 l Judge Chatfield further declared that the defendants citation of the
 
 ligan (Wallace Page ? an0 Mitchell vs. Harmony (13 Howard 115 at Page 13) was not applicable because fin those cases the question was whether the actual facts existing at the time were sufficient of themselves to show that the rule of the military forces should supercede that of the civil government and the power of congress to inact a statute was not under consideration"
 Tt may be assumed for the pur- pose of argum ent," said the court that if the present law provided that war measures, should continue after the conditions had ceased, power ~ would be vested in the court to de- Clare further exercise of the war power unconstitutional. But even this is insufficient to justify a hold Ing by the court that the statute of November 21, 1918, has become of no effect by the conditions existing at the present date.
 Quotes Postal Question.
 'The Commercial Cable Co. vs. ! Burleson, ct al., (225 Fed 99) and the eases. of the Dakota Central Tele- hSnone Co. against the State of South Dakota, Burleson vs. Dempsey, ct al., McCleod against the New England Telephone and Telegraph Co. and the Northern Pacific Railroad Co. Vs. North Dakota, decided by the su- E preme court on June 3, 1919, are au- thorities for the proposition that present conditions do not constitute B state of peace so that government authority under a war measure has entirely ceased"
 Judge Chatfield further observes:
 EETTgIz1 essary to legislate with relation to the actual maintenance of war involved also the power to adjust the condi- tons resulting from cessa ation of hos tilities so that war may be terminated and peaceful occupations resumed without destructive effect from the exercise of the powers relating to the conduct of the war itself.
 ''The salute of November 21, 1918, was expressly held constitutional in this regard in the case of the Hoffman Brewing Co. vs. McEligott, ct al, in the district court of the southern dis trict of New York on the 17th of May, 1919, and this decision was affirmed by the court of appeals of this circuit in that regard.
 Question At Issue.
 'The question under considerati ton IS not WnGtner the war depdrtm ent has the authority to enact martial law in this country because of war con- diions prevailing here or to determine thatSthe civil courts and civil author jties are not sufficient to protect per sonal property rights and to protect the individual in the United States The question is whether congress. has the power to continue war measures and to enact legislation which shall continue the enforcement of such war measures until such time as, in the