Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1919-12-15


...aemanent or wnetAe. such law
SHOULD be obonxious ~ tne --.,a
amendment We can not say thai
seven months was an unreasonable
time In which to dispose OF liquors in
bond: the amount then In storage was
less than the average because no
liquor could be made In America under
the Lever act after September, 1917.
and. II. as Is suggested, the liquors
were not ripened or aged to permit
them to be disposed OF the resulting
inconvenience to the owner attributed
to the inherent qualities Of the prop
erty itself can not be regarded as
taking Of property In the constitutional
sense"
Three Different Appeals.
constitutionality of the wa--time
prohibition and the prohibition en-
forcement laws was attacked In the
supreme court In three different ap7
peais. One came from Kentucky,
whore the former statute was held In
valid. Two came from New York,
where both acts were sustained.
Beside the millions OF dollars in
vested In brewery and distilling plants
the decision affects approximately Co.
0o0, 900 gallons OF whisky valued along
at between 500, 100000 and 100000
600, according to, internal revenue Oh
ncials' estimates.
The cases of the Kentucky Distiller-
les and Warehouse Company of Louis
Vile. Ky.,> and Dryfoos. Blum & Co. OF
New York. were virtually Identical
and resulted from efforts to compel
the government to release whisky from
bond. The third case, an appeal OF
Jacob Rupert, a brewer OF New YORK.
involved authority under the acts to
beer containing 2.75 per
cent alcohol
In arguing the cases before the SUI
preme court on Nov. 20 and 21. 1918.
Elihu Root and others appearing in
to the prohibition acts con-
tended that wartime prohibition was
because congress had
no power to prohibit the sale Of intoxi-
cants within q state except under Its
war power which had ceased; that the
act conflicted with the Fifth consti-
tutional amendment prohibiting the
taking Of private property without
Just compensation and that the war
had terminated. making the act obso-
lete and invalid. It was also contend
cd that the volstead law (the prohi-
bition enforcement act) by fixing one
half Of per cent as the maximum
amount Of alcohol in beverages. es-
tablished 2 new standard for intoxi-
cants. Mr.. Root also contended that
the constitutional prohibition amend
mont allowed liquor dealers year OF
grace" to enable them to readjust their
affairs to meet changed conditions but
despite the amendment which he ar
gas4 was virtually q contract be-
tween congress- and the states. the
liquor business had been constantly
heckled with legislation by prohibi-
kianists In congress- seeking to advance
the time for national prohibition.
These contentious were generally re-
futed by Solicitor General King and
William L. Frierson, assistant attorney
general. appearing on the govern
ment's behalf. who took the position
that the prohibition act Is still in full
force owing to the senate's delay in
ratifying the peace treaty, that a state
Of war technically exists. that national
prohibition was necessary for the win
ming Of the war and the establishment
later Of normal peace conditions and
that such legislation came within the
war powers Of congress.
In declaring the wartime prohibi-
ton act unconstitutional, Federal Dis
trict Judge Walter Evans In Louis
vile. held the act conflicted with the
fifth amendment and enjoined internal
revenue officials from preventing the
Kentucky Distilleriss and Warehouse
Company from removing whisky for
beverage purposes from its. ware
houses. The act. however, was upheld
in the Dryfoos case by the federal dis
trict court IN New; York. which dis
mlssed proceedings brought to enable
the company to withdraw a small
quantity Of distilled spirits from bond.
The Rupert case was slightly dif-
ferent from the others In that it in
volved also the right Of congress to
the continued manufacture OF
2.75 per cent beer, which was claimed,
~ ~sO'A- -AAAsOAAS"tAAASs AuJAACIAOuS 70
internal revenue officials from
interfering with the RUPERT concern
in producing such beer were asked on
the grounds that the war time prohi-
bition act, as we'll as the first section
Of the Volstead law limiting alcoholic
content Of beverages to q maximum OF
one-half Of, 1tper cent OF alcohol. were
Federal District
Judge Hand. however. dismissed the
petitions. holding the acts to como
clearly within the scope OF congress
under It's war powers.
The Kentucky case was decided by
the lower court on Oct. ~ and the
New York cases on New. II ana an
were Immediately appealed. About
eighteen months would have been re.
quired for them to make their way
thru the supreme court docket for ar.
gument had net the court upon the
motion Of both sides agreed to expe-
dite their consideration owing to the
short time elapsing before national
prohibition becomes ef-
fective in January. s
oskALoosA Pioneers DEAD,
- NJ IA n