The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1919-12-16
No. CONTINUED From
Page One

Identical and resulted from efforts TO
compel the government to release
Whiskey from bond. The third case
an appeal of Jacob RUPERT brewer
IF 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 NOV. 20 and II. 1919,
Elihu Root and others appearing in
opposition to the prohibition acts con-
tended that wartime prohibition was
Unconstitutional because congress had
no power to prohibit the sale of intoS-
lcants within a state except under its
war power which had ceased; that the
act conflicted with the Fifth consti-
utfonal amendment prohibiting the
private property Without just compen-
sation and that she war had termin-
ated making the act obsolete and in
valid 1t was also contended that the
yolstead law tthe prohibition enforce
ment act) by fixing one-half of one
per cent as the maximum amount of
alcohol in beverages, established new
standard for intoxicants. Mr.. Root
contended that the constitutional pro-
hibition amendment allowed liquor
dealers a year of grace" to enable
changed conditions but despite the
amendment, which he argued was viz
tually a contract between congress
and the states, the liquor business had
been constantly heckled with 1egisla-
ton by profibitionists in congress
seeking TO advance the time for nation
al prohibition.
These contentious were generally re-
Il. .SYfff
William L. Frierson, assistant attorney
general appearing on the government
behalf who took the position that the
prohibition act is still in full force
owing to the Senate's delay in ratify-
ing the Peace Treaty. that a state of
war technically exists. that national
prohibition was necessary for the VIM
ming of the war and the establish
ment later of normal peace conditions
and that such legislation came within
the war powers OF Congress.
In declaring the wartime prohibition
art unconstitutional. Federal District
Judge Walter Evans in Louisville, held
the act confIicted with the Fifth
amendment and enioined internal reye-
nue. officials from preventing the Ken
lucky Distnleries and Warehouse COM
pany from removing whislley for bev-
erage purposes from its warehouses
The act however. was upheld in the
Dryfoos case by the Federal District
Court in New York, which dismissed
proceedings brought to enable the COM
pany TO withdraw a small quantity OF
distilled spirits from bond.
The Rupert case was slightly diff
ferent from the others in that it in
volved also the right of congress to
prohibit the continued manufacture OF
2.55 per cent beer, which it was
claimed, is Notwithstanding. Injunc-
tons TO restrain internal revenue Of
ficials from interfering with the Rup-
pert concern in producing such beer
were asked on the grounds that the
wartime prohibition act as well as the
first section of the yolstead law limit
ing alcoholic content of beverages to q
maximum of one-half of one percen,
Of alcohol We're unconstitutional. Fed
eral District Judge Hand, however
dismissed the petitions. holding the
acts TO come clearly within the scope
OF congress under its war powers.
The Kentucky case was decided by
the lower court on Oct. Ct, and the
New York cases on Nov II and all
Were Immediately appealed Abou,
eighteen months would have been re-
qofred for them to make their way
through the Supreme Court docket for
argument had not the court upon the
S1Oston Of both sides agreed to expa-
Cite their consideration owing to the
short time elapsing before national
constitutional prohibition becomes eff
fective in January.