Norwich bulletin., 1919-12-16
THREE APPEALS FROM
 WAR TIME PROHIBITION

Washington. Dec. 15.-Constitutlon- ality of the war time prohibition and the prohibition enforcement laws was attacked in the supreme court in three different appeals. One came rom Kentucky, where the former statute was held invalid. Two came from New York, where both acts were sustained. Besides the millions of dollars in vested in brewery ard distilling plants, the decision affects approximately 6O,- 100000 gallons of whiskey valued alone at between s10e, 900 900 and s200, ,000. 0e0. according to internal revenue ofd- cials' estimates.
 The cases of the Kentucky Distiller- ies and Warehouse company of Louis vile, Ks. and Dryfoos Blum & com panv of New York were virtually iden- tical mad resulted from efforts to com nel the government to release whiskey from bond The third case. an aTneal of Jacob RrpDert a brewer of New York involved authority under the acts to manufacture beer containing 2.75 per cent. alcohol
 In arguing the cases before the su- preme court on Nov. 20 and 21. 1919, Elihu Root and others apnearing in op- position to the prohibition acts con- tended that war time prohibition was
 
 no power to prohibit the sale of intoxi- cants within a state except under it's war power which had ceased; that the act conf1icted with the fifth constltu- l tionaI amendment prohibiting the tax | ing of private property without just 1 compensation and that the war had 1 terminated. making the act obsolete and invalid. It was also contended that the Volstead law (the prohibition enforcement act). by fixing one-half of 1 per cent. as the maximum amount 1 of alcoholf in beverages established a new standard for intoxicants. MT. Root 1 also contended that the constitutional prohibition amendment allowed linuor 1 dealers 'year of grace" to enable 1 them to read +ust their affairs to meet i ch" med conditions but despite the l 9nH"rdnect which he argued was vir- ! -;Ja,l'' = contract between congress and 1 'oo statNs. tho lidIor business had feal c"rstartlv htckled with legisla- +io nhy prohibitlonists in congress l senlli7r tn odtiance the time for Ta- ticnal prohibition.
 These contentious were generally re- f'-eo' by Solicitor General King and l NVillia-o l.. Trierson, assistant attorney i ~ene~~l. "7~earinr on the govern Hee~t's behaH who took the position lot tho "~ohihition act is still in full e-'-oo 0"-i"e to the senate's delay II | ''"tifysn" the neare treaty that stat
 7f 'T'"' technically exis+s. frat nationa 1 o"0Fibi+i0n vas necessary for fac win, 1 nin~ Of the war nd the es+ahishmer i later of 'lo-7'7a1 peace conditions an(
 that such leeislation came within tht
 war nowers Of congress.
 In declaring the war time prohibition act unconstitutional. Federal Distric Judge Walter Evans in Louisville held the act conficted with the fiftl
 amendment and enioined internal rev
 enue officials from preventing Ken
 lucky Distilleries and Warehouse com
 pany from removing whiskey for bev
 craze purposes from it's warehouses
 The act. however, was upheld in tn
 Dryfocs case by the federal distric court. in New York which dismisse, proceedings brought to enable tn l cnmnanv to withdraw a small quantit,
 of distilled spirits from bond.
 The kuppert case was slightly diff ferent from the others in that it in
 volved also the right of congress t prohibit the continued manuacture 0 2.75 per cent. beer. which it was claim !, ed, is non-in intoxicating Injunctions t
 restrain internal revenue officials iron } interfering with the Ruppert concer in producing such beer was asked o
 the grounds that the war time prohibi , ton act as well as the first section 0 the Volstead law limiting alcoholi