The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1916-1920, 1919-04-24
ROOT And GUTHRIE
ARGUE FOR BEER
Caffey Urges Diminishing Suit
Of Brewery to Modify War
Prohibition.
TWO BIG POINTS Barred
Hearing Shows Bottling May
Be Resumed and Palmer's
Stand Is Uncertain,

Argument on the motion Of the Gov.
eminent to dismiss the suit OF the Jacob
Hoffman, Brewing Company, which seeks
to modify the war prohibition statutes
was begun yesterday before Judge Au.
Court.
Francis @. Caffey. United States At
torney. argued for the motion. William
ID. Guthrie of counsel for the plaintiff
began an argument against the motion
which will be continued to-day by Elihu
Root.
The plaintiff company asks for an in
Junction restraining the defendants, Mr..
CAREY and Richard ]. McElligott, acting
ana Deputy Collector OF Internal Reve-
nue. of the Third District, from inter-
fering with them In the manufacture OF
beer and other malt liquors containing
not more than 2.75 per cent. alcohol
after April 80.
Two Points Favoring brewers.
Mr.. Caffey said that no position had
been taken by the Attorney General in
relation to tho prosecution Of brewers
under the war statutes
William c. Fits special Assistant to
the Attorney General, said that Il had
been decided to permit breweries to
resume beer bottling. which was sus-
pended December by order Of the Pres
ident as food conservation regulation.
Earlier In the week resumption OF the
sale OF revenue stamps to brewers WAS
authorized following an opinion Of Mr..
Root and Mr.. Guthrie that the brewers
would be within the law in substituting
their own tags for the revenue stamps
and by depositing tax moneys for the
benefit OF the Government.
Mr. Caffey urged that the suit be dis
missed on the ground that the court In
without jurisdiction that 1t is one
against the United states. which has not
consented to be sued; that II seeks to
restrain the enforcement of the criminal
law, and that the bill OF complaint Is
insufficient on its face.
In answering the averment of the bill
Of complaint that the act OF November
21. 1918, was Unconstitutional because
enacted ten days after the signing OF the
armistice had brought the war to a closs
Mr. Carey said that Congress might well
have reasoned that tho law was neces-
sary to bring the war to successful con-
cluson. He said that some members Of
Congress might have voted with a design
TO bring about national prohibition be-
fore tho constitutional amendment be-
comes effective. but that that was a mat
teT Oh tHeOTy.
Declares Necessity Has Passed.
Judge Hand inquired OF counsel for the
brewery for the reasoning supporting the
averment. Mr.. Root answered, saying (:
The exercise OF the Presidents war
powers Is conditional upon necessity.
When the necessity no longer or lists the
powers end, whether the war does or not.
The cessation OF hostilities was clearly
indicated by the President. showing con-
clusively that the necessity for law
giving him war time emergency power
no longer existed"
A brief defending the war prohibition
laws and the theory that they prevent
the manufacture and sale OF all beers
and wines was fled before the hearing
by Wayne b. Wheeler, general counsel
OF the Anti-Saloon League, and Robert
G. Davey OF the State Anti-saloon
League.