South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1919-12-16
GENERALIZATION
is SOLE HOPE OF
LIQUOR DEALERS
Court
GiUeS Verdict
on Prohibition
The opinion follows in part;

-Four contentious are made IN
support of the relief prayed for:
THAT the act was void when
enacted because it violated the NTH
amendment;
"2-That it became void before
the suits were brought by reason
Of the passing of the war emerg-
ency;
"3-That it was abrogated or re-
peaIed by the 18th amendment;
"4-That by its own terms It ex-
pired before the commencement Of
these suits. These contentious will
be considered in their order.
'First-Is the act void because
it takes private property for public
purposes without compensation in
violation of the fifth amendment? 3?
The contention is this: The consti-
tuition did not confer police power
upon congress. Its power TO regulate
the LIQUOR traffic must therefore be
sought for in the implied war pow
ers; that is. the power to make all
laws necessary and proper for carry
expressly granted. Article one, sec
tion eight, clause IS. Congress might
under this implied power temporar-
lily 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 navy and of the workers
engaged in supplying them with
arms, munitions, transportation and
supplies. But the exercise of the war
powers is subject 20 the fifth amend
ment The severe restriction imposed
by the act upon the disposition Of
liquor amounts TO n taking OF prop
erty and being uncompensated
would. at least a. applied 10 liquors
acquired before the passage Of the
act. exceed even the restriction held
10 be adm issible under the broad pO-
lice powers possessed by the states
Therefore, since It fails TO make pro-
vision for compensation, which in
every other instance congress made
when authorizing the taking or use
Of property for war purposes, II IS
void. Such is the argument OF the
plaintiffs below.
Lacks Police Power.
THAT the United States lacks the
police power. and that this was re-
served TO the states by the 10th
amendment, is true. But it is none
the less true that when the United
States exerts any of the powers con-
ferred upon n by the constitution.
no valid objection can be based upon
the fact that such exercise may be
attended by the same incidents
which attend the exercise by "a state
of its police power, or that it may
tend 10 accomplish q similar pur-
pose.
THE war power of the United
States like its other powers and ike
the police power of the states, is
subject TO applicable constitutional
Limitations but the fifth amendment
imposes in this respect no greater
limitations upon the national power
than does the f4th amendment upon
state power. IF the nature and con
ditions Of a restriction upon the use
OF disposition Of property Is such
that a state could under the police
power. impose IL consistently with
the I4th amendment without max
ing compensation, then the United
States may for a. permitted purpose
impose a Ike restriction consistently
with the NTH amendment without
making compensation; for prohibi-
tion OF the liquor traffic is conceded
10 be an appropriate means OF in
creasing our war efficiency"
No Appropriation
There was no appropriation OF
the liquor for public purposes. The
war time prohibition act fixed a per
iod Of seven months and nine days
/ from its passage during which liQ
uors could be disposed of free from
any restriction imposed by the fed
eral government Thereafter until
the end OF the war and the ter1nlna-
ton OF mobilization IL permits an
unrestricted sale for expectation
and. within the United States sales
for other than beverage purposes.
The uncompc cnsated restriction upon
the disposition Of liquors imposed by
this act is OF a nature far less severe
than the restrictions upon the use
OF property acquired before the
enactment Of the prOhibitory law
which were held 70 be permissible
in cases arising under the 14th
amendment The question whether
an absolute prohibition OF sale could
be applied by a state 70 liquor ac-
quired before the enactment OF The
prohibitory law. has been raised by
this court but not answered, because
unnecessary to a decision.
But no reason appears why q
state statute which postponed its ef-
fective date long enough 20 enable
/ those engag ged in the business 20 dis-
.CoN-rrN-r-r-D cN- DAcu E,CF-r, i