New Britain herald., 1919-11-13
THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

COincident With the announcement of the appointment of a force of nine supervising prohibition agents to en- force wartime and constitutional pro-
 hibition in this country. it was re- lated that Rhode Island Court
 under Federal Judge Arthur C.
 Brown, had approved an injunction restraining the United States agents from interfering with the sale of liquor in Providence, and that another gentleman, of the same calling, in Kentucky, announced that he would
 issue an injunction to allow the sale of d million gallons of Whiskey. The
 wartime prohibition, according to the
 findings of both judges, is unconsti-
 tutional r.~..s-..
 Judge Brown, in his findings, states
 brewing and selling liquor has been
 set in the Prohibition Amendment,
 which became effective imm cdiately after it's ratification, The amendment
 fixes the time at which the powers of
 the States over a Subject heretofore
 always under control should ceasc"
 at which the United States and the
 various States would be deprived of
 their revenue from this source; at
 which great industries, employing
 thousands of men, should cease, and
 at which the value of. the properties should be finally destroyed, and at which there would be enforced d rali- cal change in personal habits" He finds that it is inconceiva Dle that this should have been done without the provision for a period in which the 1 loss, to some extent, might be pro- l mcnt, he goes on, not only provided ] for what should be done after Janu- 1 ary, 1920, but by the words "aftcr 1 one year, gave "eXpress evidence of 1 consid cratiOn and determination of l the necessity of affording to the States | and citizens. and to the departm entS i of the federal government as well, d 1 period of readjustmcnt of their af- l fairs 10 the new conditions that 1 would result from n transfer of the l powers from the States to the Federal 1 Governm mcnt.' The present legislation 1 destroys the rights of States and citi- ] Zcns which, but for that legislation. l they might enjoy. These rights were
 respected in the amendment but not
 in the wartime act. In conclusion, l the judge is of the opinion that the 1 time phrase in the amendment is es- sentially a part of the document, and
 it might not have been ratified other- wise. He also states that there arc i questions of the most serious charac- ] ter that this legislation docs not con-
 tain certain provisions which go far :, beyond permissible exercise of any 1 constitutional war powers.
 In Kentucky it was announced from 1 the bench that it was the courts be- l lief that the wartime act is uncou-
 stitutional and that an injunction ! would be granted which would re-
 lease for sale d million gallons of , tax-paid Whis<cy. The distillcrs Of l Chicago have asked for an injunction, but none is forthcoming as yet.
 Rhode Island was the first State of the Union to refuse to ratify the dry amendmen and in that State the first
 finding on the Nolstcad act has been handed down. It virtually sustains ] the people of the State in their con- l tention that until the amendment is 1 effective the citizens may control their l breweries and sales. Kentucky fol- ] lows today, if the action of the judge