The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1919-11-18
JUDGE HANDS
DOWN DECISION
!. AGAINST VETS
e. ri"
Liquor Interests Get Setback
in Chicago
INJUNCTION is DENIED
Judge Holds Prohibition Acts Con-
stitutonal Because Demobiliza-
ton Not Complete
INJUNCTION is DENIED

ests we're given another setback today
when Judge George A. Carpenter
handed down decision in the United
States District Court which held that
the wartime prohibition act and the
Volstead enforcement act were con.
stitutional. Judge Carpenter announ-
ced that Judge Louis Fitz Henry OF
Peoria, H.. had concurred in the de.
cision.
In making his ruling. Judge Carpen.
ter denied the suit Tor injunction
brought by Attorney Levy Mayer, rep.
resenting Hannah & Hogg. wholesale
liquor dealers to restrain United States
District Attorney Charles F.. Cline and
julius f. Smietanka, collector of in.
lternal revenue, from enforcing the dry
act and enforcement LAW
Under the fifth amendment to the
constitution, which provides that leg.
islation restricting personal liberties
of individuals may be passed if the
community as a whole is benefited
Judge Carpenter held that Congress
was empowered to pass the two acts
involved in the case.
He held the acts constitutional be.
cause "demoblization of industries
mobolized by the war was not yet
complete and that the country was
still in state of war, regardless of
General Pershing's statement that
army demoblzation was complete and
despite the Presidents veto of the Vol
stead act indicating that the war was
over"
Judge Fitz Henry is expected to
hand down his decision in Peoria to-
morrow for liquor dealers of that
city.
The decision of Judge Carpenter to.
day in favor of the "drys brings the
total number of judges who have fn-
vored prohibition up to seven while
the liquor forces have gained but two
decisions Judge Fitz Henry, who
concurred in Judges Carpenters de.
cision and who will hand down his de-
cision in Peoria tomorrow, will bring
the dry" total TO eight
Referring to the national prohibi-
ton act, Judge Carpenter in his de-
cision said:
If the state of Kansas under its
police power had the right to prohib-
it the manufacture and sale of ar
dent spirits so had each one of the
other AZ states in the Union If all
Of the states had the right, granting
that the federal government under
the constitution while prosecuting the
war. was entitled to exercise police
power necessary and proper for the
Efficient carrying on of the war, there
Is no reason why the central govern
ment could not provide against the
manufacture and sale of Intoxicating
liquors in all OF the state and that
without compensation to the owners
and dealers.
Congress had the power before
the eighteenth amendment was
passed to make police regulations
in the aid of war. This amendment
certainly did not destroy that right.
If that amendment had been passed
in January, 1917 with the one year
of grace for the liquor interests to
readjust themselves and their bust
ness, could any one in reason contend
that Congress had not the power in
April, 1917, to prohibit the manu-
facture, sale or even use of ardent
spirits"
can not agree with the decision
of Judge Brown in Rhode Island that
the eighteenth amendment necessita-
tes the declaring of war and national
prohibition acts unconstitutional.
What Congress has done is in the
interest of public welfare and pub.
morals. If plaintiffs. not entitled to
compensation, the prohibition laws
being valid, may sell or distribute
their product among people of the
country, the damage to the general
welfare has been done and never can
be undone. If the action OF Congress
was wise--and so we assume it to be
believing the prohibition acts to be
ilawful-even were the question here
involved doubtful we would have to
resolve the doubt in favor of the gov,
ernment