The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1919-06-21
Tells Court That Congress Ex-
eeeded It's Authority In En-
acting Prohibition Law
APPEARS AS COUNSEL
OF BREWERS
Contends That Congress Had
No Right to Prescribe Brew
cry Business Without Com
pensation.

declared congress exceeded ltS pow
ersn in enacting the war time pro-
hibstion law and that the collector OF
internal revenue holds the brewers OF
the United States in the hollow OF his
haudn in the course Of his argument
in the United States circuit court OF
appeals here today against the gov
ernnent's appeal to set aside the tenn
porary injunction granted month
ago by Federal Judge Hand and May
er. The Injunction restralns Cnlteo
States District Attorney Caffery and
Acting Collector. OF Internal Revenue
MeElNgott from prosecuting brewers
or interfering with their production
ofs2.75 per cent beer.
sThere are two clouds that hang
over this action" said Mr.. Root. "One
IS the penalty prescribed under the
act OF November 81, 1918, which will
break up and put an end to the brew
cry business, and the other the COM
plicatious arising from the subordina-
ton OF the brewery business TO the in
ternal revenue law.
The brewers" he went on, ARE
bound hand and foot under the law,
even. though they are engaged in the
uaahufacture Of 2.75 per cent beer.
They are not only subject to prosecu-
ton under the war time measure"
but Co concerted prosecution under
SHE internal revenue law
Mr. Root as counsel for the United
States Brewers Association which is
hacking the test case made by the
Sacob Hoffman Brewing Company OF
New York, declared that "a business
nsrefcfore considered lawful and pro-
fected aby the laws Of the State and
the. United States, is threatened with;
destruction; -
rhe f5rmer senator said, there was
not occasion for enforcement OF the
act at this time Referring to Presl-
dent Wilson's recommendation on
May 20 to lift the ban on the man
ufactrire and sale of malt and vinous
liquors, he said:
sThe recommendation did not
specify distilled liquors. but the
president, as commander in chief OF
the army of the United States and
tie person charged chiefly with the
conduct of the war, stated that de-
mobilization had so far progressed
that he regarded it safe to resume
the manufacture and sale of wine and
beer
Mr.. Root said the conplainants did
not challenge the power Of congress
20 call for the sacrifice of any and all
property rights in defense Of the ma
ton, but urged that their business
should not be sacrificed without COM
pensation.
when congress, in November,
1913, passed a law governing matters
regulated by the States alone, and
which should remain in force after
the necessity for it no longer exists.
then congress exceeded its powers,
concluded Mr.. Root.
Assistant Attorney General Fits.
who followed Mr.. Root, denied the
right of the federal district court TO
ensoin the United States attorney
from enforcing the criminal statutes
of the United States.
.The question is,' he said. "can
any ntigants come into a United
States court Of equity day in ad-
vance, processing wealth and with
learned counsel and say: There is a
criminal law I desire to offend
against have got it in my wicked
heart to do so. want the equity
corrt of the United States, by solemn
decree, to advise me and I will go
ahead and violate the law Such
right has never been granted to any
litigant. If it were, what would be-
come of our institutions?'
The bill, Mr. Fits added. was pass
ed as a war measure and is effective
until the president declares that de-
mobilization is complete.
Mr.. Fits said the constitutionality
of the war time prohibition act has
been esta blished by decision Of the su-
prere court no longer ago than Mon
day a week ago.
No intirnation was given by the
court as to when a decision in the
case could be expected. 1t was said
by both sides that no matter what
the decision may be. it is likely that
the case will be carried to the United
States supreme court.