The Washington times., 1919-11-07
DRY ACT UNLAWFUL.
ROOT TELLS COURT
VoIstead Bill Had No Relation
To Carrying on War,
Senator Declares.

NEW YORK. Nov THE prohibit
tion enforcement act is unconstitu
tional. according to Elihu Root, an
pearing here today with William d.
Guthrie, in behalf of Jacob Ruppert
who seeks an Injunction in the United
States District Court to restrain the
United States district attorney from
prohibiting the sale of 2.75 beer. Mr.
Root argued yesterday that the law
was passed under false pretenses and
it's provisions are beyond the power
of Congress to enforce.
Mr.. Root argued that in passing the
bill Congress was not exercising it's
constitutional power to raise and sun
port armies.
The President had told Congress
that the armies had been demob-
ilized," he said. He had said over
and over again that the actual war
had ended and that it was no longer
necessary to raise and support an
army. He said that when the armis-
tice was signed. Now the armistjce
has been executed. The enemy has
laid down it's arms. 1t has surrender
ed its navy and sunk it, disbanded it's
army, given up its munitions. There
are no countries in the world which
are so certain not to wage war dur
ing our lives as Germany and Austria.
The terms Of peace have been COM
municated to them and accepted. These
terms are not being discussed now
by US. We are only discussing GER
tain covenants among the parties on
one side.
No Relation TO War Alms.
This bill was not passed in rele =
ton to carrying on the war. There
Nnr oh "a
United States that doesn't know t..
The bill was passed under false pre-
lenses.
THE prohibition amendment, pass
ed during the war, provided one year
for the liquor business to adjust it,
self. Now, after the real war has
passed, when no enemy threatens,
Congress passes a law taking away
from the people the year of grace
that in time OF greatest exigency the
Will of the people decreed. This i'm
poses a greater duty upon the courts
to scrutinize the substance of this
legislation and determine whether 1t
was honest and sincere"
Mr.. Guthrie argued that in vetoing
the Volstead act and again in his
Thanksgiving proclamation, President
Wilson had in effect proclaimed that
demobilization had taken place
Clearly" said Mr.. Guthrie "he is
advising Congress that certain condi-
tions so far as conclusion Of the war
is concerned have been accomplish
ed. That is a proclamation by the
President of that fact. The Presi-
dent can proclaim a fact in any way
he sees fit"
Judge Hand remarked that this was
not the proclamation intended by the
~ Oi tr,aA l.sk
This country is still legally at
war with Germany" said Assistant
Attorney General william Frierson.
The present period. he said. was anal
ogous to the year Immediately follow
ing the civil war.
Emphasizing the necessity that the
court should be convinced beyond a
reasonable doubt before declaring the
act unconstitutional, Mr.. Frierson
predicted that New York would be
wide open should the plaintiff win.
Wants Spirits Released.
In a suit seeking permission to
withdraw distilled spirits from bond.
Attorney Levi Cook told the court
that the quantity of such spirits in
bond throughout the country was
&c, 600, 900 gallons, calued at 500, 900, =
900.
Mr. Guthrie said that 275 per cent
beer involved in his case was worth
81 900, 900. Both attorneys contended
legal consideration should be taken
of the destruction OF property valued
by the Vosltead act.
United States Attorney Caffey de-
clared that 2.I5 beer could not be sold
for beverage purposes under the law.
Then can we sell our beer for bath
ing purpose" interjected Mr.. Root.
Sure you can" Mr.. Caffey answer
ed. Perhaps such a use OF 2.75 beer
would put an end to this litigation"
Judge Hand laughed, but rendered
no decision.