Wausau pilot. [volume] (Wausau, Wis.) 1896-1940, 1919-12-23
WARTIME DRY ACT
IS CONSTITUTIONAL
Proclamation of Peace Only Hope
Left the Vets.
ENFORCEMENT TO CONTINUE
Justice Brandels Holds That Signing
of Armistice Did Not Abrogate
Powers of congress-No Ruling
on Enforcement Measure.

Washington, Dec. 16.-The United
States supreme court held the war
time prohibition law constitutional.
The supreme court reversed the de-
cision of the district court of Ken
lucky permitting the removal of whis-
ky from bond for beverage purposes.
The decision of the New York court
handed down no decision in the 10
per cent beer case.
The court ruled that the wartime
act was valid in its inception and that
its validity has not Deen changed by
any change of national condition.
The decision in the case was made
on Supreme Court Docket 602, affirm
ing a lower court decision in the case
known as "Alphonse Dryfuss, Eugene
Blum, Eugene Basche of New York vs..
William ii. Edwards, collector of in
ternal revenue"
The case involved the right of Dry
fuss to withdraw distilled spirits from
bonded warehouses for beverage pur-
poses
They attempted to withdraw 30 bar
rels of whisky by offering cash, which
was refused by the internal revenue
collector. The withdrawal was not
permitted.
Case Brought in New York.
The case was brought in the district
court in New York to declare uncon-
stitutional the war prohibition act,
and to enjoin the United States from
acting under the authority Of the act.
The district court denied the motion
for a preliminary injunction.
The argument of attorneys for the
owners of the liquor advanced the
theory that the wartime prohibition
act has been wholly shorn of its con-
stitutionality by the indisputable
change in conditions and circum-
stances since the time of its enact
ment. No question was raised as to
the validity of the war prohibition
act in its inception. but as to its pres
ent constitutionality.
The Kentucky decision, which was
overruled, was that of Edward FL
wood Hamilton, collector of internal
revenue for the collection district of
Kentucky, versus Kentucky Distiller-
les & Warehouse company, Levy May
err and William Marshall Built, at
torneys.
Appeal to Supreme Court.
Appeal was brought to the Supreme
court from the District court of the
United States for the western district
of Kentucky by the government.
This is suit in equity to enjoin
the collector of internal revenue from
refusing to accept the tax on guam
tity of whisky, and to permit its re-
moyal from bond for beverage pur-
poses. A motion to dismiss having been
overruled, a final decree was rendered
granting the injunction.
The tax was rendered to the revenue
collector, which was refused on the
ground that the removal from bond of
whisky for beverage purposes except
for export was prohibited so long as
the war prohibition act was in effect.
The question involved is the con-
stitutionality of the act and the en-
forcement of the Volstead law. The
distilleries contended the act operated
to take private property for pubic
use without just compensation in con-
travention of the fifth amendment to
the Constitution, and that the act has
terminated and ceased to be of legal
effect
Large Supply in Kentucky.
Louisville, KY, Dec. 16.-The Su-
preme court ruling declaring the war
time prohibition constitutional makes
valueless about $500,000,000 worth of
Kentucky whisky in so far as sale for
domestic use is concerned.
The only ray of hope seen py the
owners of this enormous stock Of
liquor no7 is to export it.
According to best estimates there
are at resent 100000 barrels in the
state, despite the fact that whisky has
been exported from this state at the
rate of 5000 barrels a week for some
time past.
Liquor men declared they doubted
II it would be possible to send the re-
naming barrels beyond the three-mile
limit of the United States before JAM
uary 16.