New-York tribune., 1919-11-13
Providence Court Enjoins
enforcement and Same
Action Is Promised bv
Tribunal at Louisville
Both Declare 1t
Is Unconstitutional
Threats of Revenue Men
Deter the Rhode Island
Brewers From Opening

Two Fedcrnl Judges ycste,dny rem
dercd decisions intended to nul'ifp ,vGy-
time prohibition.
J"d0e Arthn'' T.. 5romn, IN tho United
States Dist'-ict Court Ia Proridcncc, is
snea tcmporayy injunction restraining
federai o1Scers from enforcing pro-
ras'oNs of the acortimc "dry' act.
Fcdcrcl image Evcns, sitting at
LouisriVc, announced thnt he would issue
az f"lNnction to-doy restraining officers
OF the gorernment from intcrfeJ~iug ,cith
the sale of whisky upon ,uhich distillers
had paid taues
PROVIDENCE, Nov. IL A prelrn-
NARY injunction issued by Judge A. S
Brown in the United States District
Court here to-day forbiddng the en-
forcemcrt of the wartime prohibition
act has apparently had but little effect
on the conduct OF the saloons of the
city thus far.
Judge Browns action WAS taken on
petition of three of the largest brew
erles OF the state. who sought to pre-
vent the authorities from prosecuting.
them for manufacturing and selling 4
per cent matt beverages.
In spite of the courts action a
warning which was later issued by the
collector of internal revenue. and which
made it clear to saloonkeepers that if
Judge Brown should be ovcrruled in
the higher court, evidence collected by
revenue agents in the meantime would
be used as basis for prosecutions, had
a deterrent effect upon saloonkeepcrs.
1t was deemed probable tonight that a
per cent beer would not be put on sale
until final action by the highest
tribunal.
Text of Decision
The court, in handing down its de-
cision, said
act in question will ultimately be held
unconstitutional and of the irrepara-
bic damage that would result from
its immediate enforcement, and as, in
view of the evidence afforded by the
Presidential Droclamations and other
circumstances its immediate enforce
ment is not imperative, | am con-
vinced ttut the plaintiffs right to a
preliminary injunction is clear
THE Eighteenth Amendment became
part of the Constitution imm cdiately
upon its ratification" the opinion re-
cites. ut then fixed the time at whick
the powers of the states over a sub
ject heretofore always under their con .
mont of the Uillad States, the govern
ments of the stat and municipalities,
should be deprived of sources Of rev
cnue from which millions had been
derived; at which great industries,
employing thousands Of men, should
cease and at which the value of cnor-
nous properties for the uses Of which
they were designed should be finally
destroyed and at which there should
be enforced radical change in per-
sonal habits.
Speaks OF Possible Losses
at is inconceivablc that this would
have been done without the provision
TOR q period during which the loss
might be, to some extent, provided for
and lessened.
"The amendment provided not only
for what should be done after Janu
ary, 1920, but by the words after one
year gave express evidence of con-
necessity Of affording to the states
and citizens and to the departments
of the Federal government as we'll a
period of readjustment of their affairs
to the new conditions that would re-
suit from a transfer of powers from
the states to the Federal government.
"There can be no question that the
present legislation, if valid, destroys
rights of states and citizens which,
but for that legislation, they might
enjoy, and which were respected and
recognized in the adoption of the
amendment.
aside from the question Of the
repugnancy of this act to the amend
ed Constitution, there are questions
of the most serious character as to
whether this legislation does not con-
tain provisions which go far beyond
permissible exercise of any constitu-
tional war powers.
81 am OF the opinion that the time
provision contained in the Eighteenth
Amendment is an essential and inscp-
arabic part of that amendment; that
without it it would not have been
submitted to the people and would
not have been adopted; that it is an
express provision made to cover the
special emergency Of a radical change
in the Constitution and to obviate
destruction of the rights of states
and OF citizens"