Evening journal., 1919-12-15

]
on the law and then flatly declared that
there was no sound foundation for
them.
The cases decided today were an ap-
peal from the Louisville Federal Court
where the act had been held unconsti-
tional and an injunction granted re-
straining the Government revenue Of
flcers from prohibiting the removal OF
liquor from bond and one from the New
. York Court where the law mao Deeh
! upheld.
Justice Brandeis deviating from the
usual custom OF the court did not Keep
the large crowd In suspense until aiter
the reading Of the opinion before an
nouncng the final decision. but an
nOunced Immediately that The decision
Of the Louisville court is reversed ana
that Of the New York court Affirmed.
/ The four contentious OF the liquor
interest which the court swept aside as
not having a legal foundation were:
3 That the wartime prohibition law de-
prived citizens Of their property With
q out Just compensation in violation OF
the nfth amendment; that 1t mas De-
come void through the cessation or nos
tilities: that 10 was repealed by ihe
provision OF the constitutional amend
menl allowing liquor interests year
/ 90 dispose of their stocks; that II eX-
pired with the termination OF demoDi-
lizaiion.
} The refusal Of the court TO agree to
iany OF these contentious makes the
decision so sweeping that the liquor
/ interests, 70 is believed, have no way OF
knocking out the law.
! Answering the first contention. the
court held that the liquor interests
cannot expect the government 10 COM
pensate them. The opinion indicates
/ that the court thinks the period pc
tween the time wartime prohibition
was passed on November q, 1915 ana
the date 60 went into effect, July !. i9l'
was ample 90 dispose Of these stocks
and in addition pointed out that the
and nhe days was not a reasohtDIe
liquor can be exported.
"Ne cannot say that seven mohlhs
time" Justice Brandeis said.
Regarding whether the war tlIne
emergency has passed the court held
that The statement OF the president
that the war is over does not consti-
tute a proclamation Of peace. Neither
has drmohilizaii0n been completed. the
court held. referring TO statement by
secretary of War Baker. on Dec. 1, ]
that The army was "a per cent demoDi-
iized.
1T Is clear. ct least probable that
The reason why the President did not
declare Rehabilitation complete though I
rot q vorable 90 The continuance Of the
war. was that he felt that he could not
accurately and legally so state Bran
deis said. There is no basis for the
contention that tine Presidents words
vetOing Che NOlsiead act constitute
proclamation"
Brsndeis pointed that the Lever food
control act. the guaranteed wheaL !
price. control Of sugar and the action
of the President in yetoing the bill
taking away his power over railroad
raies. all indicated that the war has
not been concluded. and that the gov
ernment is still exercising It's war
powers.
The opinion follows IN part:
-Four contentious are made in sup /
port Of the relief prayed for:
I'D That the act was VOID when en- /
acted because it violated the nth .
amendment:
" p That IL became void before IN .
suits We're brought by reason Of the +.
passing Of the war emergency.
"l3). That it was aorogated OF re-
pealed by the elghteeth amendment /
'(4)-That by its own terms &c eX- /
plred before the commencement OF /
these suits. These contentious Will be /
considered in their order.
First: Is the act VOID because 1t |
takes private property f0r public pur- |
poses without compensation in viO-
lation Of the nth amendment? TIE |
contention is this: The constitution did /
not confer police power upon Con-
gress. It's power to regulate the liquor 4
traffic must therefore be sought in th1 |
implied war powers; that. is the pow J
er 90 make all laws necessary and |
proper for carrying into execution the /
war powers granted.
Article 1. section s. clause is. Con- /
gress might under this implied power !
temporarily resulalc the sale OF liquor .
and II rea as0nably necessary. forbid its /
sale in order TO guard and promote tho /
efficiency OF the men composing the |
army and navy and Of the workers en- /
gagged in supplylg them with arms /
munitions. transportation ard supplies 1
But the exercise OF the war powers is /
subject 90 the nth amendment. The /
severe restriction imposed by the act /
upon The disposition Of liquors .
amounts to n taking Of property: and |
being uncOmpcnsaied would at least
as applied TO liquors acquired before
the passage Of the act, exceed even the
restriction held 10 be admissible I'M
der the broad police powers possessed
by The states. Therefore. since i'll
fails TO make provision for compensa-
ton which in every other Instance
Congress when authorizing the taking
or use OF property for war purposes
provides. 10 is void.
"That the United States lacks the po-
lice power and that this was reserved
TO the states by the tenth amendment l.
is true But 10 is non. the less true \
that when the United states eXerts any
Of the powers conferred on it by the
constitution no valid objection can be
based upon the fact that such exercise
may be attended by the same incidents
which attend the exercise by a State OF
is police power or that il may tend TO
accomplish a similar purpose
"The war power OF the United Slaies.
like its other powers and like the police
power Of the states. u subject TO ap-
plcabie constitutional limitations but
the nflh amendment imposes in this re-
spect no greater limitations upon the
national power than does the fourteenth
amendment upon Slate power. II the
nature AMI conditions Of restriction