The Washington times., 1919-12-15

Fourteenth amendment without max
ing compensation, then the United
states may for a permitted purpose
impose a like restriction consistently
with the Fifth amendment without
making compensation; for prohibition
of the liquor traffic is conceded to
be an appropriate means of increas-
ing our war efficiency.
There was no appropriation of the
liquor for public purposes. The war
time prohibition act fixed a period of
seven months and nine days from it's
passage during which liquors could
be disposed of free from any restric-
tion imposed by the Federal Govern
ment. Thereafter. until the end of
the war and the termination of mobi-
iization 1t permits an unrestricted
sale for export, and, within the
United States, sales for other than
The uncompensated restriction up
on the disposition of liquors imposed
BY this act Is of nature far less Sc
we're than the restrictions upon, the
use of property required 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 ac-
Quired before the enactment of the
prohfbitory law has been raised by
this court but not answered, because
unnecessary to a decision.
State Statutes.
But no reason appears why State
statute, which postpones it's effective
date long enough to enable those en-
gagged in the business to dispose Of
stocks on hand at the date of its en-
actment should be obnoxious to the
Fourteenth amendment; or why such
q Federal law should be obnoxious to
the Fifth amendment. We cannot say
that seven months and ming days was
not a reasonable time within which
to dispose OF all liquors in bonded
warehouses on November 81, 1918.
The amount then in storage was ma
terially less than was usually car
ried, because no such liquor could be
lawfully made in America under the
Lever food and fuel control act after
September 8, 1917.
And IL, as is suggested, the liquofs
remaining in bond November 81, ,1918,
were not yet sufficiently ripened or
aged to permit them to be advantage
ously disposed Of within the limited
period of seven months and nine days
thereafter. the resulting inconven-
fence to the owner, attributable to the
inherent qualities of the property it
self. cannot be regarded as a taking
OF property in the Constitutional
sense.
"Second-Did the act become void
by the passing Of the war emergency
before the commencement of these
suits? 1t is conceded that the me,e
ccFsstion of hostilities under the ar
r!stre did not abridge OF suspend
the power OF Congress to resort to
pfr., .bition of the liquor traffic as e
means of increasing our war efric.
ency; that the support enc care of tile
army and navy duriag demobilizatIcn
was within the war emergency. ani
that, hence, the act vas valid when
passed hTe conte itioa is that be-
tween lhe date y. IFS enactment arc
the commencement of these suits IT
had become evident that hostilities
would not be resumed; that demobili-
ration had been effected; that thereby
the war emergency was removed:
and that when the emergency ceased
the statute became void.
Acts Of President.
ITO establish that the emergency
has passed, statements and acts of
the President and of other executive
officers are adduced; some Of them
antedating the enactment OF the
statute here in question. There are
statements of the President to the
effect that the war has ended and
peace has come, that certain war
agencies AID activities should be dis
continued, that our enemies are inn
potent to renew hostilities and that
the objects Of the act here in Dues
ton have been satisfied in the de-
mobilization Of the army and navy.
1t Is shown that many war time ac-
tivities have been suspended; that
vast quantities of war materials have
been disposed Of; that trade with Ger
many has been resumed and that the
censorship of postal, telegraphic and
wire communications has been re-
moved But we have also the fact
that since these statements were
made and these acts were done, Con-
gress, on October IS, 1919, passed over
the Presidents veto the national pro-
hibition act which, in making further
provision for the administration of
the war time prohibition act, treats
the was as continuing and demobili-
zation a 5 incomplete; that the Senate.
on November 10, 1919. refused to rat
ify the treaty OF peace with Germany,
that under the provisions Of the Lever
act the President resumed. on Octo-
Der 80, 1919, the control OF the fuel
supply which he had relinquished
partly on January 81, 1919, and
partly on February TO- 1919, that
he is still operating the rail-
roads of which control had been taken
as a war measure; and that on No
vember 1s. 1919. he vetoed Senate bill
641, because IL diminished that con-
troll. that pursuant to the act of
March 4, 1919. he continues to con-
troll. by means OF the Food Admins
tration grain corporation, the supply
of grain and wheat flour; that
through the United States Sugar
Equalization Board. Inc, he still reg
ulates the price of sugar; that in lis
message to Congress on December =,
1919, he urgently recommended the
further extension for six months Of
the powers OF the Food Administra-
ton; that as commander-in-chief he