New Britain herald., 1919-12-15
DECISION AFFECTS
 50 MILLION GALLONS
Liquor Stock on Hand Is Worth
 More Than S1OO,OOO,OOO

Washington, Dec. 15.--Constitution- l ali1N of the wartime prohibition and l the prohibition enforcement laws was attacked in the supreme court in 1 three different appeals. One came 1 rom kentucky where the former l statute was held invalid Two came rom New York where both acts were sustained.
 Beside the millions of dollars in vested in brewery and distillina plants the decision. affects .apDroxi- mately 6O,000,000 gallons of whislev valued alone at between S1O0. 900. 900 and $20O,000,000 according to internal revenue officials estimates.
 The eases of the Kentucky Distil- Iellcs and Warehouse company of Louisville, Ky, and Dryfoos, Blum, X company of New York were virtually identical and resulted from efforts to compel the government to release WhlskeN from bond. The third case an appeal Of Jacob Ruppert, a brewer or New York, Involved authority 1ln- der the acts to manufacture beer con- talnlng 2.l5 per cent alcohol.
 Root Argues Case
 Tn arguing the cases before the su- preme court on Nov. 20 and 21 1919 Ellhu Root and others appearine. in opposition to the prohibition acts con \ tended that wartime prohibition was unconstitutional because congress had no power to prohibit the sale of in- toXlcants within a, state except under US war power which had ceased: that the act confiicted with the fifth con stltnuonal amendment fbiting the tD lz just compensation and that the war had terminated, making the act obso- lete and invalid It was also con- tended that the Nolstead law the 1 prohibition enforcement act) by fix [ ing one-half of one per cent as the 1 maximum amount of alcohol in bev- ! erages established new standard for | lntoXicants. Mr. Root also contended 1 that\ the constitutional prohibition | amendment allowed liquor dealers a ] year of grace to enable the to re- adjust their affairs to meet changed 1 conditions but despite the am endment 1 which he argued was virtually a con- | tract between congress and the states | the liquor businessf ha been constant 1 ly heckled with legislation by prohi- 1 bitionists in congress seeking to ad- l vance the time for national prohibit 1 tion.
 Contentious Refuted.
 These contentious were generally refuted by Solicitor General King and William L. Frierson, assistant attor- ncy general appearing or the govern ments behalf, who took the position that the prohibition act is stilI[in full force owing to the senates delay in ratifying the peace treaty. that a state S>f .>rl,,,s al prohibition was necessary for the winning of the war and the esta blish- ment later of normal peace conditions and that such legislation came within the war powers of. congress. ~.a
 Tn declaring the war time prohibit | ton act unconstitutional, Federal i District Judge Walter Evans in Louis [ vile, held the act contlicted with the 1 fifth amendment and enjoned intern al revenue officials from preventing the Kentucky Distilleries and Warehouse 1 company from removing Whis<ey for beverage purposes from it's Warehous- 1 es. The act. however, was upheld in l the DrNfoos ease by the federal dis ! trict court in New York which @dis- ! missed proceedings brought to enable ! the company to withdraw small | quantity of distilled spirits from bond. l
 The Ruppeft case was slightly diff ] ferent from the others in that it in 1 volved also the right of congress to 1 prohibit the continued manufa cture | of 2.75 per cent. beer, which it was l claimed, is non-intoNica ting. Injunc- l tions to restrain internal revenue of 1 licials from interfering with the Rup- 1 pert concern in producing such beer were asked on the grounds that the l
  the first section of the Nolstead law 1 limiting alcoholic content of bever- ages to d maximum of one-half of one l per cent. of alcohol were unconstitu- tional. Federal District Judge Hand, 1 however, dismissed the petitions, holding the acts to come clearly with ! in the scope of congress under it's war powers.
 The Kentucky case was decided by 1 the lower court on October 27 and | and all were immediately appealed. | About eighteen months would have | been required for them to make their 1 way through the supreme CCUrt dock ! ct for argument had not the court up- | on the motion of both sides agreed to l expedite their consideration owing to l the short time clapsing before na- ] tiOnal prohibition becomes effective in | January.
 AJTEn I,IpJ ErNrJNL,n