The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1919-12-15
WAR DRY ACT
OK, SUPREME
COURT SAYS
Law is Held Constitutional by
Nations Highest Court
Decision Affects ..'O,O0O.-
600 Gallons Held In Store.
DOESN'T STOP EXPORT
(By Associated Press)


(By Associated Press)
? WASHINGTON. Dec. 15.-The war
time prohibition act was held constttu-
tional today by the supreme court =
The decision. deciding appeals from
and New York involving the
constitutionality Of the wartime prohf
bition act, was read by Justice Bran
deis. Justice Brandeis said the gov.
ernment did not appropriate the liquor
by stopping domestic sale, as the way
was left open by exporting It.
Federal court DEGREES In New York.
dismissing proceedings brought by
Dryfoos, Blum and company, to compel
revenue officials to permit the with
drawal from bond Of whisky for bev.
erage purposes, were confirmed by the
court.
In deciding the question, the su-
preme court also dissolved the In
functions restraining revenue officials
from interfering with the removal
from bond OF about 10000, 900 gallons
OF whisky valued AZ approximately
$4,000. 900, held by the Kentucky Dis
tilleries and Warehouse companies Of
Louisville. KY.
War Powers Still Hold.
abrogate the war powers Of congress,
associate Justice Brandeis said.
Judge Brandeis also called attention
to the continued control Of the rail-
roads and reassumption Of powers BY
the government relative to coal and
sugar under war acts to show that the
government continued to exercise
their various war powers despite the
signing Of the armistice.
The constitutional prohibition
amendment is binding on the federal
government as well as the states, and
supercedes state laws, the court
declared.
Three Appeals Made.
Constitutionality of the war time
prohibition and prohibition enforce
ment laws was attacked in the su-
preme court in three different appeals.
One came from Kentucky, where the
former statute was held invalid. Two
came from New York. where both acts
were sustained.
Besides the millions OF dollars In
vested In brewery and distilling plants
the decision affects approximately
SO. 0.000, 900 gallons of whiskey, valued
alone at between $1oO, ,000, 900 and
$2OO, 100000. accordinf to internal rev.
SAuC OAllCldIS CStlmdleS.
The cases Of the Kentucky Distil-
leries and Warehouse company, Of
Louisville, KY. and Dryfoos, Blum &
Company Of New York were virtually
identical and resulted from efforts to
compel the government to release
whiskey from bond. The third case,
OF New York. involved authority under
the acts to manufacture beer contain
ing 2.75 per cent alcohol.
In arguing the case before the su.
preme court on Nov. 20 and 21, 1919,
Elihu Root and others appearing In
opposition to the prohibition acts,
contended that wartime prohibition
was unconstitutional. because con-
gress had no power to prohibit the
sale of intoxicants within a state, ex-
cept under its war power, which had
ceased; that the act conflicted with
the firth constitutional amendment.
prohibiting the taking Of private prop
| erty without just compensation, and
that the war had terminated. making
the act obsolete and invalid. 1t was
also contended that the Volstead law
(the prohibition enforcement act) by
fixing one-haH Of one per cent as the
maximum amount Of alcohol in bev.
| erages, established q new standard
for intoxicants. Mr.. Root also con-
| tended that the constitutional pro-hi-
| bition amendment allowed liquor deal
ers "a year Of grace" to enable them
to readjust their affairs to meet the
changed conditions, but despite the
amendment, which he argued was
virtually a contract between congress
and the states, the liquor businesses
had been constantly heckled with leg.
islation by prohibitionists in congress.
seeking to advance the time for ma
tional prohibition.
These contentious were generally
refuted by Solicitor General King and
William L. Frierson. assistant attor.
ney 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 state
of war technically exists. that national
prohibition was necessary for the win
ming of the war and the establish
ment later Of normal peace conditions
and that such legislation came within
the war powers of congress.
Compiled With Constitution.
In declaring the war time prohibt-
ton act unconstitutional, Federal DIS
trict Judge Walter Evans in Louisville,
held the act conflicted with the fifth
amendment and enjoined the internal
revenue officials from preventing the
Kentucky Distillcries and Warehouse
company from removing whiskey for
beverage purposes frfom its ware
houses. The act, however. vas up
held in the Dryfoos case by the Fed
eral district court Of New York. which
dismissed proceedings brought to en-
able the company to withdraw small
quantity of distilled spirits from bond.
The Rupert case was slightly
different from the others In that It In
yolyed also the right of congress 70
prohibit the manufacture Of 474 per
cent beer, which 1t was claimed, wa
Notwithstanding. Injuncti0DS to r..
strain internal revenue oflcials from
interfering with the Rupert concern
in producing such bear were asked on
the grounds that the wartime phohi.
| bition act as well as the first section
, of the Volstead law limiting alcoholic