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

into the motives Of Congress. Nor may
the Court enquire into the wisdom OF
the legislation. Nor may ii pass upon
the necessity for the exercise OF u
power possessed since the possible
! nbuse Of power IL not an argument
against its existence.
"Conccdiug. for the purposes OF the
present case. that the question OF the
continued validity OF the war .proh-
I bition act under the changed circum-
stances depends upon whether 1T ap-
pears that there is no longer any
necessity for the prohibition of the
! sale of distilled spirits for beverage
/ purposes, il remains TO be said that on
/ obvious grounds every reasonable in
| tendment must he made in favor of its
| continuing validity, the prescribed
! period of limitation not having arrived ;
| that to Congress in the exercise of its
! powers. not least the war power upon
which the very life of the nation de-
/ pends. wide latitude of discretion
must be accorded and that it would
require a clear case to justify a-Court
in declaring that such an act, passed
| for such a purpose, had ceased TO have
force because the power of congress ne
! longer continued.
Act Still Remains Valid
In view of facts of public knowl
edge. some of which have been referred
to. we are unable to conclude that the
act has ceased to he valid
"Was the act repealed by the adop
ton of the eighteenth amendmentt By
the express terms Of the amendment the
prohibition thereby imposed becomes et-
fcctive after one year from its ratltica
ton. Ratification was proclaimed or
January 20. 1919. The contention is
that ns the amendment became on it,
adoption an integral part OF the con
stitution. its implications are as binding
aS it's language that in postponing th'
effective date Of the prohibition th'
amendment impliedly guaranteed t'
manufacturers and dealers in intoXicat
ing liquors year OF grace. ana Una
not only was Congress prohibited there
by from cnacting meanwhile new pro
. hibitory legislation, but also that tn
: then existing restriction imposed by tn
wartime prohibition act was removed.
."The eighteenth amendment with it
[ Implications. if any. is binding not onl,
in times of peace, but in war.
Furthermore, the amendment is blndln
alike upon the United States and tn
Individual states. II it guarantees
wear of immunity from interference
g by the federal government with tn
- ii,,,or traffic it Is difhcul
f to see why the guaranty does not ex
$ tend also to immunity from lntericr
e eucc by the individual states, Wlth ilk
T. results also as to then existing Sla,
= legislation. me contention u
@ unSOund.
s No Expiration by Limitation
:, "Did the prohibition imposed by tn
act cxpirc by limitation before tn
commencement Of these suits
n II is contendcd both that the war ma
y heon concluded and that the demobIiHh
e ton has terminated.
y 'Jn III, absence Of specific provision
~ 10 the contrary, the period oL war ma
r. been held to extend to the ratifcauo
. of the treaty Of peace or the proclamla
e tion Of peace. From the fact that othV
~ statutes concerning war actiVitlcs con
y tain each a specific provision Tor dctcr
" mining when it shall cease to be opcr
'S otivr and from the alleged absence
= such n provision here, it is argue
that the term conclusion of the wa
y should not he given it's ordinary lcG
le meaning that instead it should be cor
is strued as the time when actual hostl
VI ties ceased. or when the treaty OF pea
Vt was signed at Versailles, on June =
1910, by the American and German reT
10 reSentatives: or, more generally. whe
g the actual war emergencies ceased !
id reason of our complete victory ana u
Ig disarmament of the enemy, coupled vii
N the demo1ilzatiOn of our army and q
rt closing of war activities, or when Il
declaration purpose of act of 'conser'
ing the man power of the nation, AT
to increase efficiency in the productc
,e of arms, munitions. ships, food AZ
l. clothing for the army and navy shn
) have been fully satisfied.
ut War Not Yet Concluded
'u But there is othing in the wor
a. a. used to justify such o construcho
III Conclusion of the war clearly did n
ne mean cessation of hostiities, becau
the act was approved ten days aft
as hostilities had ceased upon the signil
ne of the armisticc. Nor may we assul
T. that Congress intended by the phra
II II to designate the date when the trea
lte of peace should be signed at Nersaill
We or elsewhere by German and Amerlci
'se representatives, since by the constit
% tion a treaty is only a proposal un
~, approved By the Senate.
Mt "It was expected that the 'conclusi
o. Of the war would precede the termin
IN ton of rehabilitation. Congress. ther
Of fore, provided that the time when {
ID. act ceased to be operative should
he fixed by the Presidents ascertain
i'm and prOclaiminG the date when demo
n ilization had terminated
e; "It is insisted that he has done
he The contention does violence to both
n language and the evident purpose Of
to provision. When the President me
les toned in his veto message the {
n mobilization of the army and navy,
ply words were doubtless used in a popu
gh sense just as he had declared TO CO
on gress, on the occasion Of the signing
ice the armistice: The war thus con
m to an end.
tly 'If he had believed on October
loI 1919, that rehabilitation had, in
'od exact sense, terminated, he wo
IN doubtless have issued then prOclan
my tion to that effect. for he had ma
IN tested a strong conviction that restr
,as tion upon the sale of liquor should el
ION Only by such proclamation could
pl purpose of Congress be attained, 1
ro- the serious consequences attending I
certainty be obviated.
DemObilization Not Terminated
nal 'But in fact rehabilitation had
iian terminated at the time OF the veto
ing the act Of October %, 1910; or at
req time these suits were begun; and,