New-York tribune., 1919-12-16
Congress Rights Upheld
When Actual War Ended

"Dd the act become void by the
passing of the war emergency before
the commencement of these suits?
It is conceded that the mere cessa-
tion of hoseilities under the arms-
tice did not abridge or suspend the
power of Congress to resort to pro-
hibition of the liquor traffic as q
means of increasing our war eff
cheney; that the support and care
of the army and navy during de-
mobilization was within the war
emergency, and that hence the act
was valid when passed. The conten-
ton is that between the date of it's
enactment and the commencement of
these suits it had become evident
that hostilities would not be re-
sumed; that rehabilitation had been
effected; that thereby the war emer-
gency was removed and that when
the emergency ceased the statute be-
came void.
"To establish that the emergency
has passed, statements and acts of
the President and of other execu-
tive officers are adduced. some of
them antedating the enactment of
the statute here in question. But we
have also the fact that since these
StoISulCuto WSAC AhUUS NAN VANoS s~SSH
we're done Congress, on October %,
1919, passed over the Presidents
veto the national prohibition act;
that the Senate, ON Novem-
Der 10, 1919, refused to ratify the
treaty of peace with Germany; that
under the provisions of the Lever
act he resumed, on October 80, 1919,
the control of the fuel supply; that
he is still operating the railroads, of
which control had been taken as
war measure; and that on November
IS, 1919, he vetoed Senate bill GAL, be-
cause it diminished that control; that
pursuant to the act of March a, 1919,
he continues 20 control, by means OF
the food administration grain cor
poration, the supply Of grain and
wheat -four; that through the United
States Sugar Equalization Board,
sugar; that in his message to Con-
gress on December ., 1919, he ur-
gently recommended the further ex-
tension for six months of the powers
of the food administration; that as
commander in chief he still keeps
a part of the army in enemy occu-
pied territorv and another part in
Siberia, and that he has refrained
from issuing the proclamation de-
claring the termination of demoblll-
zation. for which this act pnovldes.
"No principle of our constitutional
law is more firmly established than
that this court may not in passing
upon the validity of a statute in
ouire into the motives of Congress.
Nor may the court inquire into the
wisdom Of the legislation. Nor may
it pass on the necessity for the exer-
else Of power possessed, since the
possible abuse of a power is not an
argument against its existence.
Congress Must Say
Has Passed
"Conceding for the purposes of the
present case that the questionrR II the
continued validity of the war prohl-
bition act under the changed circun-
stances depends upon whether 1t ap-
pears that there is no longer any ne
cessity for the prohibition Of the sale
of distilled spirits for beverage pur-
poses, it remains to be said that on
obvious grounds every reasonable In
tendment must be made in favor OF
its continuing validity, the prescribed
period of limitation not having ar
rived; that to Congress in the exer-
else Of it's powers, not least the war
power upon which the very life of
the nation depends, wide latitude
of discretion must be accorded; and
that it would require clear case to
justify court in declaring that such
an act, passed for such q purpose,
had ceased to have force because the
power of Congress no longer con-
tinued. In view of facts of public
knowledge. some of which have been
ofo 70 oh1o 70
clude that the act has ceased to be
valid.
"Was the act repealed by the adop-
ton of the Eighteenth Amendment?
By the express terms of the amend
ment the prohibition thereby i'm
posed becomes effective after one
year from it's ratification. Ratifica-
ton was proclaimed January 20, 1919.
The contention is that, as the amend
ment became on its adoption an in
tegral part Of the Constitution, its
implications are as binding as its
language; that in postponing the eff
fective date of the prohibition the
amendment impliedly guaranteed to
eating liquors year of grace; and
that not only was Congress prohib-
tied thereby from enacting mean
while new prohibitory legislation, but
also that the then existing restric-
tion imposed by the war time pro-
hibition act was removed.
Eighteenth Amendment
Good in Peace and War
The Eighteenth Amendment, with
its implications. if any, is binding,
not only in times OF peace, but in
war. Furthermore, the amendment
is binding alike upon the United
States and the individual states. If
it guarantees a year Of immunity
from interference by the Federal
government with the liquor traffic
it is difficult to see why the
guaranty does not extend also to
immunity from intc rfererce by the
individual states, with like results
also as to the existing state leglsla-
ton. The contention is clearly un-
sound.
Did the prohibition imposed by
the act expire by limitation before
the commencement of these suits? 1t
is contended both that the war has
been concluded and that the demo-
Dliizatlon has terminated.
''ln the absence of specific pro-
visions to the contrary, the period OF
war has been held to extend to the
ratification of the treaty of peace or
the proc lamat;on of peace. From the
fact that other statutes concerning war
activities contain each specific pro-
vision for determining when it shall
CALI. FOR HE'T.pi