South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1919-06-27
VETS AND DRYS
CLAIM VICTORY
Court MOdities INJUNCTION
against Prosecutor in Beer
Production Case.

NEW YORK. Jun 27.-Attorneys
for both the brewers and the feder-
al government claimed Thursday
night 10 have gained victory
through an opinion handed down by
the United States circuit court OF ap-
peals modifying Judge Mayors pre-
liminary injunction against interfer-
ence with or prosecution for the
production and sale OF beer contain
ing not more than 2.75 percent alcO-
hol content.
The original order restrained
Richard J McEligott. acting col
lector OF internal revenue from in
terfering with the manufacture or
sale OF 2.75 percent beer pending a
legal decision as 10 whether a was
intoxicating IL also forbade
L. S. Judge Francis G Cadey from
prosecuting the brewers and retail
ers or such beer The appellate court
decision strikes out the Injunction
'pendente lite" against the federal
prosecutor, making IL possible for
him 10 proceed as he secs. tit but
continues in force the injunction
against McElligotte regarding whom
the court makes this observation:
The Injunction against the acting
collector Of internal revenue can do
no harm.
Claims Decision Victory.
Emory r Buckner OF counsel for
the brewing interests, declared the
appellate court decision was a clear
victory for his clients and that the
right TO manufacture and sell 275
percent beer after July was as
sured. The brewers were ready 20
prove he said. that beer Of that po-
tency was "non-intoxicating" and IL
was now up 20 the courts 10 decide
whether war time prohibition for
babe the sale OF ali beer or merely
Intoxicating beer.
Cornelius ]. Smyth assistant Unit
ed States district attorney. one OF the
orafters of the governments brief i'm
the pending litigation. maintained
the appellate court decision gave the
brewers less OF an advantage than
they possessed under the original in
junction. He characterized as OPP
timistic" the statements by counsel
for the brewers that the latter could
continue manufacturing 2.75 beer.
The decision. he pointed out. would
not exempt the brewers or retailers
from prosecution under the federal
war time prohibition act which pro-
vides a years Imprisonment or
1000 fine. or both. in event OF con-
viction.
Judge Gives Opinion.
Judge Hough. one Of the appellate
judges. IN partly dissenting opin-I
ion. said:
The wrong here complained OF
. was and is that of the internal rev
enue department OF the treasurer.
Under laws in force long before
1915 every brewer. individually.
Irewed on suffrance Of the commits
sioner. As July /. 1919 approached
that official threatened 10 refuse the
licenses and stamps without which
brewing is absolutely Illicit and sub
iects the brewer 10 confscatory pro-
cecdings and penalties OF extreme Sc
verify The plain intent was 20 en-
force strained construction OF the
Bct OF Nov. p. 1913. by preventing
brewers from complying with pre-
SO far As I can now see, the in
junction a gainst the acting collector
stops that plan and I regard the re-
lief obtained below against the Unit
I'd States attorney ~ IN effect pre-
venting that official from asking at
the hands OF "a grand jury indict-
ments for offenses created only by
the act Of Nov 81 itself Such pos
able indictments would not involve
prelimir ary seizure OF plant and
tsols ans they should be left TO their
course al common law except un-
der circumstances of extreme ne
lessity not here shown. This dissent
then. is limited 20 the reason as
signed for a result 10 which 1 agree. ."