Greenwood daily commonwealth. (Greenwood, Miss.) 1919-1926, 1919-12-15

PROHIBITION ACT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Supreme Court Renders This Decision
Today-Also Dissolves In
functions.
Associated Press

Associated Press
WASHINGTON, Dec. 15-The
Wartime Prohibition Act was held
constitutional today by the Supreme
Court, the Federal Court decrees In
New York dismissing the proceedings
brought by the Dryfoos Blum & Com
pany to compel Internal Revenue off,
.cials to permit the withdrawal from
bond of whiskey for beverage purpos-
es. The court also dissolved injunc-
tions restraining the Revenue officials
from Interfering with the removal Of
-bout 100000 gallons of whiskey,
held by Kentucky Distillers and Ware
house companies of Louisville.
Justice Brandeis in reading the de-
cision of the court, which was unani-
nous, said the signing of the armis-
tice did not abrogate the war powers
of Congress. No decision was render
ed in the cases involving the constitu-
tionality of the Volstead Prohibition
Enforcement Act.
Constitutionality of the War time
Prohibition and the prohibition enfor-
cement laws was attacked in the Su-
preme Court in three different ap-
peals. One came from Kentucky
where the former statute was held in
valid. Two came from New York
xxyh ho4h oofc %osr
Beside the millions of dollars in
vested in brewery and distilling plants
the decision affects approximately
60,O0O,OO0 gallons of whiskey valued
alone at between $1OO,O0O,OOO and
5000 100000 according to internal re-
venue officials estimates.
The cases of the Kentucky Distil-
leries and Ware house Company of
Louisville, KY, and Dryfoos, Blum &
Company of New York were virtually
identical and resulted from efforts to
compel the government to release
whiskey from bond. The third case,
an appeal of Jacob Rupert, brew
er of New York involved authority
under the acts to manufacture beer
containing 2.75 per cent alcohol.
IN arguing the cases before the
Supreme Court on Nov. 20 and Fl,
1919, Elihu Root and others appear
ing in opposition to the prohibition
acts contended that wartime prohib-
ition was unconstitutional because
Congress had no power to prohibit the
sale of intoxicants within state ex-
cept under its war power which had
ceased; that the act conflicted with
the Fifth constitutional amendment
prohibiting the taking of private pro-
perty without just compensation and
that the war had terminated, making
the act obsolete and invalid. 1t was
also contended that the Volstead law
(the prohibition enforcement act) by
fixing one half of one per cent as the
maximum amount of alcohol in bev
erages, established a new standard
for intoxicants. Mr.. Root. also con-
tended that the Constitutional Prohib-
ition amendment allowed liquor deal
ers "year of grace" to enable them
to readjust their affairs to meet
changed conditions but despite the
amendment, which he argued was
virtually a contract between Congress
and the states, the liquor business had
been constantly heckled with legisla-
ton by prohibitionists in Congress
seeking to advance the time for nat
ional prohibition.
These contentious were generally
refuted by Solicitor General King and
William L. Frierson, assistant attor
| ney general appearing on the gov
| ernments behalf, who took the posi-
ton that the prohibition act is still
in full force owing to the Senate's de-
lay in ratifying the Peace Treaty, tha'
a state of war technically exists, thai
national prohibition was necessary fol
the winning of the war and the estab
lishment later of normal peace condi
tions and that such legislation cam
within the war powers of Congress.
In declaring the wartime prohibi
ton act unconstitutional, Federal Dis
trict Judge Walter Evans in Louis
vile, held the act conflicted with tn
Fifth amendment and enjoined inter
nal revenue officials from preventin,
the Kentucky Distilleries and Ware
house company from removing whis
key for beverage purposes from it
warehouses. The act however, wa
upheld in the Dryfoos case by the Fed
eral district court in New York whic
| dismissed proceedings brought to er
able the company to withdraw sma
quantity Of distilled spirits frol
bond.
The Rupert case was slightly di.
ferent from the others in that it il
volved also the right of Congress
! prohibit the continued manufactu1
: Of 2.75 per cent beer, which It WI
claimed, is Notwithstanding. 1njun
tions to restrain internal revenue
ficials from interfering with the Ru
/; pert concern in producing such be