Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1919-12-15

Il NeuT anu nun
aught that appears, it has not yet
terminated The report of the Secrc-
tary of War made to the President un
der date of November II, l9lo l9hu
Transmitted to Congress on December
n. in describing the progress OF ue
mobilization, shows tpage u that uur
iuq thc preceding ten days lNovemDer
"a tOI 2O1S officers and 10, 2GO en-
listed men had been discharged; the
rnte of discharge being substantlaliS the
same as during the month OF OctoDer'
in which $500 officers and 81 900 en-
listed men were discharged
Three Attacks OH War Prohibition Bill
Constitutionality of the. war time
prohibition and the prohibition amend
ment enforcement laws was attacReu
in the Supreme Court in three diuersn'
nnnegls. One came from KENTUCKY,
rbnre the former statute was held in
valid. Two came from New lorh' "hei'
both acts were sustained. ..-,-,
Reside the millions of dollars invested
in brewery and distilling plants me deeo de
cision affects approximately 6o,o"W'Voo
yaIIons of whisky valued alone NJ nr-
tween 500. 600 900 and 500 ,ouu'ooo:
according to internal revenue ohlclalS
The cases of the Kentucky Distillcries
aud Warehouse Co.. Of Louisville, Ny
and Dryfoos. Blum & Co. OF New
, York were virtually Identical ana re-
/ suited from efforts to compel the gov
/ ernment to release whisky from pohu'
The third case, an appeal of Jacob Kup :
mort n brewer of New York. involved
/ authority under the acts to manufacture
heer containing 2.7J per cent alcohol
Root Called Law Invalid
| In arguing the cases before the 81
nreme Court on November 20 and Il,
! 1o10 Elihu Root and others appearing
/ in onposition to the prohibition acts
contcndcd that wartime prohibition was
unconstitutional because Congress hnd
no power to prohibit the sale OF into%ii =
cants within state except under tlS
war power. which had ceased that inc
act conficted with the fifth constitu =
tionol amendment prohibiting the TAX
ing of private property without Just
compensation, and that the war had ter
minated, making the act obsolete enc
invalid. ~,
II was also contended that the Vol
stead law (the Prohibition enforcement
act) by fixing u of per cent as thu
maximum amount of alcohol in beyer
age, established a new standard for III
tOXicants.
As recently as Wednesday last, De
romber 10, additional appeals from de
cisions affecting "2.75" beer were heart
!. by the Supreme Court. These resulted
from dismissal of federal indictment
against the American BreWing 20
: in New Orleans and the Standar!
: Brewing Co. in Baltimore, Whlc,i
: had manufactured beer of the nlcoholi
quantity forbidden by the Nolstead act
EIihu Root and William J.. Marbur.
appeariug for tho brewers, argued ina
, war beer was not Intoxicating an
. therefore did not come under the lnhl
hit;on of the law. While William J.
Frierson, assistant attorney general
contcudod il was the intention OF Con
press TO include all beer containin
moro than one half of one per cent o
!, alcohol.
"Year of Grace" Denied by Act
r Mr.. Root also contcndcd that tn
constitutional prohibition hmendmcn
= allowed liquor dealers ,,y"ar
. grace to enable them to readlust tnei
! affairs to meet changed conditions pu
! despite the amendment, which he argue
was virtually a contract between Con
] ornss and the states. the liquor busines
: mad been constantly heckled with legis
i lation by prohibitionists in CongreS
e seeking TO advance the time for nationi
: prohibition. .u
These contentious were 2enerall
Il combated by Solicitor General Kin
y and William l.. Frierson. assistant at
q torney general, appearing on the gov
n ernment's behalf, who took the positio
q that the prohibition act is still in fu
G force owing to the Senate's delay
! ratifying the peace treaty, that sta
= of war technically exists, that nations
:, prohibition was necessary for the VIII
u ming of the war and the establishmel
u later of normal peace conditions al
that such legislation came within Il
war powers of Congress,
Is Contending Views of L. S. Courts
T. In declaring the wartime prohibitit
~ act unconstitutional, Federal Distri
" Jndge Walter Evans, in Louisville, he
7 the act confiicted with the fifth amend
= ment and enjoined internal revenue o
y dcials from preventing the kentucl
V DistilIeries and Warehouse Co. from r.
y moving whisky for beverage purpos
:, from its warehouses.
!" The act, however, was upheld in G
J., Dryfoos case by the federal distri
court IN Ne" iolh' NhlNn ulohliSo
proceedings brought to enable the con
m many to withdraw a small quantity
l. distilled spirits from bond,
y The Rupert case was slightly di
he ferent from the others in that it i
De yolyed also the right of Congress to pr
lg bibit the continued manufacture Of =.
J. per cent beer, which, it was claimed,
Misunderstanding. N.
o. "2.75" Beer Held Illegal
he Iniunctions to restrain internal re
~ enue officials from interfering with
a. Ruppert concern in producing such b'
hc were asked on the grounds that
mr. wartime prohibition act as well as
n Grst section of the Volstead law lin
of ing alcoholic content of beverages TO
cs maximum of one half of ! per cent
alcohol, were unconstitutional. Fede
o District Judge Hand, however, d
o missed the petitions, holding the acts
iin come clearly within the scope Of Go
III gress under its war powers.
u The Kentucky case was decided
u the lower court on October % and
:, New York case on November ii and
H. we're immediately appealed. Alb,
~ eighteen months would have been
u nnu nIired for them to make their "
through the Supreme Court docket
argument had not the court, upon
motion of both sides, agreed to expeC
,ot their consideration owing TO the sh
~ time elapsing before national consti
he tional prohibition becomes effective
for January