The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1919-12-17
0P P|N|O N IN PART
NE COURT
JUSTICE ON WAR
DRY Ii v

iUI l. ~ Ill IL W
Washington, Dec. 16.-The decision Of
the United States supreme court in de
claring wartime prohibition constitu-
tional adds the final milestone to the
long fight which has been made TO
make this country dry.
The court will render opinions again
next Monday, at which time the beer
cases are expected to be decided, after
which the court will recess until Jan
uary 3.
The prohibition constitutional amend.
ment will become effective January It,
Upon the courts decision on the pro.
hbition enforcement law, will depend
whether the federal government has at
hand any legal means for making the
amendment effective. The constitutions
ality OF wartime vrohibtion. however
the drys are confident win keep the
country dry until the amendment is
carried into effect by law of its own
Associate Justice Brandies, in hand.
500 N''AA NAlN bpAAilpllf StlIu, III part
THE war power of the United tSates,
like its other powers and like the police
powers of the states, is subject to ap
plicable constitutional limitation; but
the fifth amendment imposes in this re.
spect no greater Limitation upon the
national power than does the fourteenth
amendment upon state power. If the
nature and conditions of a restriction
upon the use or disposition of property
Is such that a state could, under the
police power, impose it consistently with
the fifth amendment, without making
compensation; for prohibition of the liq.
uor traffic is conceded to be an appro-
PIRATE means of increasing our war eff.
ficiency.
There was no appropriation OF the
liquor for public purposes. The war.
time prohibition act fixed a period of
seven months and nine days from its
passage during which liquors could be
disposed Of free from any restriction
imposed by the federal government.
Thereafter until the end OF the war and
the termination of rehabilitation, it
permits an unrestricted sale for export
and. within the United States, sales for
other than beverage purposes. The un.
compensated restriction upon the dis.
position of liquors imposed by this act
Is of n nature far less severe than the
restrictions upon the use Of property
acquired before the enactment OF the
prohilrtory which were held to be per-
mlssible in cases arising under the
fourteenth amendment. The question
whether an absolute prohibition of sale
could be applied by q state of liquor
acquired before the enactment of the
prohibitory law has been raised by this
court but not answered because unnec
essary to a decision. But no reason
appears why a state statute, which
postpones its effective date long enough
to enable those engaged in the business
to dispose of stocks on hand at the date
Of its enactment, should be obnoxious
to the fourteenth amendment; or why
such federal law should be obnoxious
to the fifth amendment
I'VE cannot say that seven months
and nine days was not a reasonable
time in which to dispose of all hauors
in bonded warehouse on November q,
1918. The amount then in storage was
materially less than was usually car
ried; because no such liquor could be
lawfully made in America under the lie
yer food and fuel control act after Sep
tember 8, 1917. And if, as is suggested,
the liquors remaining in bond Nov. q,
1918, were not yet sufficiently ripened
God fhorn t,, I,n a., 60,
geously disposed of within the limited
period Of seven months and nine days
thereafter, resulting in Inconvenience to
the owner, attributable to the inherent
qualities of the property itself, cannot
be regarded as a taking Of property in
the constitutional sense.
Did the act become void by the
passing OF the war emergency before
| the commencement of these suits? 1t
is conceded that the mere cessation of
hostilities under the armistice did not
abridge or suspend the power of con.
gress to resort to prohibition Of the
| liquor traffic, as a means of increasing
our war efficiency; that the support
and care Of the army and navy during
rehabilitation was within the wal
| emergency; and that hence, the act was
valid when passed. The contention is
that between the date OF its enactment
and the commencement of these suits il
had become evident that hostilities haC
been effected; that thereby the wal
emergency was removed and that when
the emergency ceased the statute
became void