Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1919-12-15
ONEMOREHOPE
. OF WETSGOES .
GL|MMER|NG
Decision of Court Unani.
nous on Constitu-
tionality.
ARMISTICE DID NOT
END WORLD WAR
Court says Nation 10 Skill Operating
Under Wartime Conditions In Many
; Ways-contsntion 81 Prssidsnt VIII
son Openly Disputed-court oso'arss
LIQUOR 10 Not cenfiseatsd But 70
, Open - Export channsIs.

prohibition was held constitutional to-
day by the supreme court In unani-
nous decision. Thus vanished the
hopes OF many for q wet holiday
time" No decision was rendered In
the CAGES involving the constitutional.
ity OF tho volstead law formed to
carry out the prohibition law.
In passing, however. Associate JUS
tice Brandeis did hold that the amend
ment was binding on the states as
well as the federal government The
court entirely reversed the contention
of the vets that wartime prohibition
was outside the powers Of congress.
The decision added one Of he final
miIestones In the fight to make the
country dry. After giving the decision
the court recessed until after the hoii-
days. The prohibition amendment
becomes effective Jan. Is. On the
courts decision Of the wartime pro.
hibition law will depend whether the
government has at hand any means
for making the law effective.
Armistics Did NotsEnd Wa.
The decision of the supreme court
today deciding appeals from Kentucky
and New York was read by Associate
Justice Brandeis. safaxr
In deciding the question the supren1S
court also dissolved in3unctions re-
straining revenue officials from inter-
fering with the removal from bond
whisky valued at s75.00o,ooo 5000 held
by the Kentucky distilleries.
The signing Of the armistice did not
abrogate the war powers Of congress-.
Justice Brandeis said In reading the
decision of the court
Liquor May bs Exported.
Justice Brandeis said the govern
ment did not confiscate the liquor by
stopping It's domestic sale. an the way
was left open for exporting 1t.
Federal DEGREES in New York dis
missing proceedings brought by Drey-
fus Blum &. Co., to compel internal
revenue officials to allow the with
drawal from bond Of whisky was up
held by the court
Justice Brandeis also called atten-
ton to continued control of railroads
by the government and control Of
sugar and other war acts to show that
the government still has its war pow
ers. The constitutional war prohibi-
ton amendment is binding on the gov
ernment and supersedes state laws.
The judgment of the court in the
Kentucky and New York cases was
unanimous.
Disputes Wilson's Contention.
Y,,uk nvov, Al. 4
basis for the statement in President
Wilson'S message that the war had
come to an end.
In rendering its opinion the court
confined itself to the wartime act
and took no action on the so-called
beer. cases. which attacked the consti-
tutionaiity Of the war time act.
Text Of Decision.
Justice Brandeis' decision follows:
'The war power Of the United States
like its other powers and the police
powers Of the states is subject to ap-
plicable constitutional provisions, but
the fifth amendment imposes In this
respect no greater limitation in this
power than does the fourteenth amend
ment on states powers. II the re-
striction properly is such that a state
could. under police power, impose II
consistently under the fourteenth
amendment, then the United States
may for q like purpose impose like
restriction without making compensa-
ton, for prohibition Of the liquor traf-
fic is conceded to be an appropriate
means OF Ofincreasing our war efficiency.
~ There was no appropriation Of the
;liquor for public purposes, the war
time prohibition act fixed a period Of
seven months and nine days from its
passage during which liquors could be
disposed OF free from any restriction
by the government. Thereafter unttl
the end Of the war and the termina.
tion of mobilization 1t permits an un.
restricted sale for export and within
the United States sales for other than
beverage purposes.
n The restrictions under this act Is far
less severe than the restrictions on
property required before tne passage
Of the prohibition law.
"The question Of whether absolute
prohibition OF sales OF liquor could be
prohibited by the stare before the
enactment Of the law has been con-
sidered by the court but no decision
has been rendered. But there 10 no
reason why q state statute which
wostpones Its effective date which
cnSbles business to dispose OF liqnor
should - obnsxious te The 3ourtesnth