The West Virginian. [volume] (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1914-1974, 1919-12-15
Presidents Remarks About War Being
Ended Have no Force in Law
Justice Brandeis Says in Opinion
No HINT AT COURTS VIEW ON 2:75 BEfR
Constitutional Prohibition When It Comes viii Wipe
Out the Various State Prohibition Acts s
History Of the Cases

prohibiting the taking Of private prop.
'erty without Just compensation and
that the war had terminated, makinE
the act obsolete and invalid. It was
also contended that the Volstead law
the prohibition enforcement act) hy
fixing one-half of one per cent. as the
maximum amount of alcohol In hey-
erages, established a new standard
for intoxlcants. Mr.. Root also cone
tended that the Constitutional Prohis
bition amendment allowed liquor dealet
ers year Of grace" to enable them
to readjus* their affairs to meet
changed conditions but DESPITE thal
amendment, which he argued was
virtually a contract between goIlsI
gress and the=states1 the lfquof busiss
ness had been constantly heckled
legislation by prohibitionists "a "a
gress seeking to advance the time fpE
national prohibition.
These contentious were generally
refuted by Solicitor General King and
William L. Frierson assistant att0t-
ney general appearing on the govern
ment's behalf, who took the position
that the prohibition act Is still in full
forceowing to the Senate's delay ia
ratifying the Peace Treaty, that q st;lss
Of war technically exists, that ma
tlonal prohibition was necessary for,
the winning Of the war and the estabs
lishment later of normal peace condis
tons and that such legislation came
within the war powers Of Congress
In declaring the war time pFohibls
ton act unconstitutional, Federal Dis
trIct Judge Walter Evans In Louts-
vile, held the act confliCted with the,
Fifth amendment and enjoined inter-
nal revenue officials from preyentingi
the Kentucky DistlllerieB and Ware
house company fro mremovfng Whiss
key for beverage purposes from
warehouses. The act, however, wa
upheldin the Dryfoos case by the Eeq-
eral district court In New York Wliiell
dismissed proceedings brought to etz
able the company to withdraw q small
quantity of distilled spirits from
bond. is sssa
The Rupert case was slightly difs
ferent from the others in that II "a 4
volyed also the right Of Congress- 70
prohibit the continued manufactIre ol
275 per cent beer, which II Wasl
claimed, is on-intoxicating. ln1nncs
tons to restrain internal revenue O
flcials from interfering with the ElilI-s
pert concern In producing such beer
we erasked on the grounds that tll q
war time prohibition act as well aa IA 9
first section Of the Volstead laW iillis Y
iting alcoholic content et etsbexera
to a maximum Of one-half oe one !
cent. Of alcohol, were incone titu kiotr
al. Federal District Judge kaai1df
however, dismissed the petitions
holding the acts to come clearly tlls
in the scope Of Congress unde iEh =
powers.
The Kentucky case was decide AZ
the lower court on October % and tie
New York cases on November 1nd
all we're immediately appealed 1p1t
eighteen months would have been Ies
oulred for them to mako their Wy
through the Supreme Court docltet icr
argument had not the court upon ~ q
motion Of both sides agreed to exp
dite their consideration owing q 81 g
short time elapsing before lasionai
constitutional prohibiho don become eb-
fective in January.
= W.