The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1919-07-23
DEFENSE CLAIMED
THAT PEACE HAD
BEEN RESTORED
Defendant in the Case, Who
Was Backed by Connecti-
cut Liquor Men, Opened a
Saloon for the Purpose of
Trying Out the Constitu-
tionality of the Law.

New York, July 23.-Constitutionality
of the war time prohibition act was up
held in an opinion handed down here to-
day by Federal Judge Thomas l. Chat.
field of Brooklyn in test case against
Stephen A. Minery, saloon keeper
brought by the Liquor Dealers associa-
tion of Connecticut. Judge Chatfield';
decision was based upon testimony he
heard recently in New Haven, where he
sat in the place of Federal Judge Ed
win S. Thomas of Connecticut.
Minery, backed by the Connecticut liq.
nor men in order to test the validity OF
the law, opened a saloon in Meriden. He
was arraigned before Judge Chatfield in
New Haven on the charge that on OF
about July 7 last he sold intoxicating
liquor "unlawfully and knowingly be-
fore the conclusion of the present wal
and before the termination of demobii-
zation, the date of which is to be de-
termined by the president"
The saloon keeper was defended by
Arnold A. Alling, state prosecutor OF
Connecticut, who demurred to the charge
against Minery on the ground that the
law was unconstitutional and that as
peace had been restored, it was not wal
time measure.
1t is said the decision will be appealed
to higher court. Judge Chatfeld, in
his opinion, said:
"The defendant has demurred to this
complaint upon the grounds;
"0) That the facts set forth in the
information do not constitute crime
under the laws of the United States.
"(21 That the act was committed on
or about the Sth day of July, 1919, and
therefore. not on a day before the con-
elusion Of the present war.
"(3) That the law of Nov. 81, 1918
(chapter 2l2 of the e5th Congress, I'd
session. under which the defendant il
charged, is unconstitutional in that il
contravenes amendment 10 to the consti.
tuition of the United States reserying tc
the states respectively such powers as
that of regulating the sale of spiritou:
and intoxicating liquors within each re-
spectiye state
"(4) That the act of Nov. 81, 1918, i:
unconstitutional and void in that it con
travenes the provisions of the l8tf
amendment, which prohibits after Jan
1920, the sale Of intoxicating beverage:
and thus specifically withholds from
Congress until January, 1920, the power
to prohibit the sale of spurious and in
toxicating liquors within any particular
state
"t5) That the act of Nov 81, 1918, i:
unconstitutional, in that it provides fol
the operation and enforcement of provi
sions for war after the termination Of
the war and until termination of demo
bilization by the express language oi
the statute, which thus shows that the
act is to continue after the war emer
gcncy had ended and the war subsidized,
"(6) That the information does moi
allege any emergency war and which
could be designated "war" and which
therefore, could be basis for such legis
lation."
The court, after declaring that "nC
separate discussion of the first and sixth
grounds Of the demurrer is necessary in,
asmueh as it is evident that if the law
be upset over the objections raised by
the other grounds Of the demurrer, these
furnish no reason why the law should
be held beyond the powers of Congress;
and unconstitutional 'opned' that pro
hibtion of the sale of Intoxicating liq
uors through the exercise of the power t
levy war is within the rights of Con
gress in the exercise of its discretion"
Prohibition Does Not Contravene Article
Ten.
Judge Chatfeld dismisses the thirt
ground of the demurrer that the war
time prohibition law contravenes articl,
10 Of the amendment to the constitution
declaring that " if Congress had the pow
er to enact this particular law, for tn,
purpose of conserving food 1T i
no objection to an exercise of that power
to say that it thereby accomplishes pro
hibition of the sale of alcoholic liquors
which under other amendments of tn,
constitution is left to legislation by tn,
particular states"
In sustaining this position the cour
cited three precedents, the first re Colocl
III. S. 526l relatev to-a tax act for tn,
raising of revenue which was upheld
although the effect of the law was tt
prevent deception in the sale of oleomar
garine for butter and although the pre-
vention of this traffic was assured to b.
one of the objects of passing the law
The second citation that of McCra,