The daily Gate City and constitution-Democrat. (Keokuk, Iowa) 1916-1922, 1919-12-15
section
ly granted.


clause is. Congress might under this
implied power temporarily regulate
the sale OF liquor, and, If reasonably
necessary, forbid its sale in order to
guard and promote the efficiency of
the men composing the army and the
navy and of the workers engaged in
supplying them with arms, ammuni-
tons, transportation and supplies.
But the exercise of the war powers
is subject to the fifth amendment.
The severe restriction imposed by the
act upon the disposition of liquors
amounts to q taking Of property; and
being uncompensated would, at least
as applied to liquors acquire before
the passage of the act, exceed even
the restriction held to be admissible
under the broad police powers pos
Isessed by the states. Therefore, since
1T fails to make provision for compen.
Isation, which in every other instance
congress made when authorizing the
taking or use of property for war pur-
poses, it Is void. Such Is the argu-
ment of the plaintiffs below III;
That the United States lacks the
police power and that this was re-
served to the states by the TENN
amendment, is true But It ts none
the less true that when the United
States exerts any of the powers con-
ferred upon it by the constitution,
mo valid objection can be based upon
the fact that such exercise may be at
tended by the same incidents wnicn
attended the exercise by state OF It's
police power, or that 1t may tend 70
accomplish a similar purpose.
The war power :ae ,.pniteu
xs- oxyS
the police power Of the states, is SUBJ
ject to applicable constitutional nmi-
tattons but the fifth amendment I'M
noses In this respect no greater limi-
tations upon the national power than
does the fourteenth amendment upon
state power. II the nature and con-
ditions OF a restriction upon the use
or disposition Of property is such that
a state could under the police power,
impose It consistently with the four
.teenth amendment without making
compensation, then the United states
may for a permitted purpose impose
q like restriction consistently with the
fstb amendment without making con-
Eensation: for prohibition of the
liquor traffic is conceded to be an ap-
nropriate means Of increasing our war
cheney. -.
"Tbere was appropriation OF the
li1Uor for public purposes Inc war
time prohibition act fixed period OF
seven months and nine days from It's
massage during which liquors could be
d,sposed of free from any restriction
innosed by the federal government
Thereafter. until the end Of the war
and the termination of mobilization
q nerrnits an UNRESTRICTED sale fer ex-
nort and, within the United States,
sales for other than beverage plr-
poses. The uncornpensated restric-
ton upon the disposition of liquors
imposed by this act is OF nature far
less severe than the restrictions upon
the use of property acquired before
the enactment of the prohibitory law
which were held to be permissible IN
cases arising under the fourteenth
amendment, The question whether an
absolute prohibition of sale could be
applied by state to liquor acquired
before the enactment sof the prohfbi-
tory law, has been raised by this
court but not answered, because un,
necessary to decision.
"But no reason appears why a
state statute which postpones Its
effective date long enough to enable
those engaged in the business to dis
pose of stocks on hand at the date
of it's enactment should be obnoxious
to the fourteepth amendment or why
such a federal law should be obnoxi-
| GUS to the nth amendment. We can
not say that seven months and nine
days was not reasoable time within
which to dispose OF all liquors In
bonded warehouses on November IL.