The Washington times., 1919-12-15
WARTIME DRY LAW
STANDS TILL PEACE
Supreme Court Hands Down De-
cision Declaring Act Is
Constitutional.
tconsinued from First Page.)

tconsinued from First Page.)
tAe Government and Dryfoos, Blum &
Co, New York
In the Louisville Federal court the
Kentucky Distilleries and Warehouse
Company obtained an Injunction re-
straining the revenue collector for the
district from prohibiting the removal
from bond of the millions of gallons
of whiskey stored throughout the
State.
The Government Immediately ap-
pealed the case, Judge Walter Evans
having declared the wartime act un-
constitutional. This opinion was re-
versed-
The Government won at New York,
Judge Knox refusing q similar in
junction TO -Dryfoos. Blum e Co. to
remove fifty barrels OF whiskey from
bond This was affirmed today.
LiG.er MEMS Stand.
The contention of the liquor inter-
ests was that the wartime prohibit
tfen act, because OF the probability
that Il would extend over until con-
stitutional prohibition become ef-
fective would deprive them OF their
property without just compensation.
The Louisville case was instituted
October II. and the New York case
short after. The Government at
torneys in the cases were Solicitor
General King and Assistant Attorney
General Frierson. while the liquor in
terests were represented by Levy
Mayer and William Marshall Bullitt,
Of Chicago. and Walter C. Nokes, of
New York.
Fexf sf Opinion.
The opinion follows, IN part:
-Four contentious are made In sup
Port OF the relief prayed for:
THAT the act was void when
enacted, because IL violated the Fifth
Amendment;
THAT II became void before
these suits were brought by reason
OF the passing OF the war emergency:
"3-That it was abrogated or re-
pealed by the Eighteenth amendment:
Four-That by its own terms il
expired before the commencement of
these suits. These contentious win
Be considered In their order.
Has Ne Pslice Power.
First--Is the act-void because II
takes private property for public
purposes without compensation in
violation OF the Fifth Amenment?
The contention is this: The Constitu-
ton did not confer police power upon
liquor traffic must, therefore be
sought for in the implied war powers
sought for in the implied war pawers
that is. the power TO make all laws
necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the war powers ex-
pressly granted
Article 1. section 8, clause IS. Con-
gress might under this implied power
temporarily regulate the sale OF
n1
forbid its sale In order to guard and
promote the efficiency OF the men
composing the army and the navy
and of the workers engaged in sup
plying them with arms, munitions,
transportation and supplies.
sabteet To Fifth Aneadnent.
"But the exercise OF the war power
u subject to the Fifth amendment
The severe restriction imposed by the
act upon the disposition Of liquors
amounts to q taking of property, and
being uncompensated would. at least
NJ applied to liquors acquired before
the passage of the act, exceed even
the restriction held to be admissible
sessed by the States. Therefore, since
tt fans to make provision for compen-
eadon, which in every other instance
Congress made when authorizing the
taking or use of property for war
purposes, II II void. Such is the
argument OF the plaintiffs below.
That the United States lacks the
police power, and that this was re-
served to the States by the Tenth
amendment, Is true. But II is none
the less true that when the United
states eKerts any of the powers con-
ferred upon IL by the constitution, no
valid objection can be based upon the
fact that such exercise may be at
tended by the same incidents which
attend the exercise by a State of
its police power. or that IL may tend
to accomplish . similar purpose
Subject To Limita lions.
The war power of the United
states, like its other powers and like
the police power of the States, is sub
ject to applicable constitutional linn
itatfons, but the Fifth amendment i'm
poses in this respect no greater limi-
tatfon upon the national power thar
does the Fourteenth amendment upon
state power. II the nature and con-
ditfons of restriction upon the use
or disposition Of property is such that
a State could, under the police pow
er. impose IL consistently with .he