The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1919-12-18
SUPREME COURT HANDS DOWN
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
War Powers of Government Still Ex-
ist, Says Justice Brandies.

stitutional Monday by the Supreme
Court of the United States in a unani-
nous decision. Thus vanishes the hope
of many for ''wet" holiday time
No decision was rendered on the
cases involving the constitutionality
of the Volstead law, the Prohibition
enforcement act framed to carry out
the intent of the prohibition amend
ment to the Constitution.
In passing, however, Justice Bran
dies did hold the prohibition amend
ment was binding on the state as well
as on the federal government.
The court entirely reversed the con-
tention of the vets that war time pro-
hibition was outside the wartime pow
ers of Congress, and pointed out that
wartime control of food and railroads
still was in effect
The decision added one of the final
milestones to the long fight to make
the country dry.
The prohibition constitutional
amendment will become effective on
January 16, 1920.
Upon the Courts decision on the
prohibition enforcement law will de-
pend whether the federal government
has at hand any legal means for max
ing the amendment effective. The con-
stitutionality of wartime prohibition,
however, the drys are confident, will
keep the country dry until the amend
ment is carried into effect by law
of it's own.
Justice Brandies said there was no
basis for the contention that President
Wilson's statement in his message,
vetoing the prohibition enforcement
act, that the war had come to an end,
was proclamation announcing the
termination of the war.
In rendering its opinion, the Court
confined itself entirely to the wartime
prohibition act and took no action on
the socalled beer cases which attacked
the constitutionality of the prohibition
enforcement act.
The Judgment of the Court in the
Kentucky and New York cases were
unanimous.
Constitutionality of the war time
prohibition and prohibition enforce
ment laws were 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.
where both acts We're sustained.
Besides the millions of dollars in
vested in brewery and distilling plants
the decision affects approximately co.
100000 gallons of whiskey valued at
between S1O0,000,000 and $200,000,000
according to internal revenue officials
estimates.
The caes of the Kentucky Distiller-
les and Warehouse Company of Louis
vile, KY, and Dryfoos, Blum & Com
pany, 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, a brewer
of New York involved authority under
the acts to manufacture beer contain
ing 2.75 per cent. alcohol
In arguing the cases before the Su-
preme Court on November 20 and 21,
1919, Elihu Root and others, appear
ing in opposition to the prohibition
acts, contended that wartime prohibi-
ton was unconstitutional because Con-
gress had no power to prohibit the
sale of intoXicants within state eX-
cept under it's war power which had
ceased; that the act conficted with the
fifth constitutional amendment pro-
hibiting the taking of private prop
erty without just compensation and
that war had terminated, making the
act obsolete and invalid. 1t was also
contended that the Volstead law had
by fixing one-half of one per cent as
the maximum amount Of alcohol in
beverages, established new stand
ard for intoxicants Mr.. Root also con-
tended that the Constitutional Pro-
hibition amendment allowed liquor
dealers "a years grace" to enable
them to readjust their affairs to meet
changed conditions but despite the
amendment, he argued, was virtually
a contract between Congress and the
States, the liquor business has been
constantly heckled with legislation by
prohibitionists in Congress seeking to
advance the time for national prohi-
bition.
These contentious were generally
refuted by Solicitor General King and
William L. Frierson, assistant attor-
ney general, appearing on the gov
ernmept's behalf, who took the posi-
ton that the prohibition act is still
in full force owing to the Senate's de-