Vilas County news. [volume] (Eagle River, Vilas County, Wis.) 1896-1927, 1919-11-19
DRY ACT IS CALLED
VOID BY z COURTS.
Held voIStead Measure Conflicts
With the 18th Amendment.
SELL BEER IN PROVIDENCE.
Rhode Island and Kentucky Decisions
Victory for the Vets and a Blow
to Dry Nation-Law Ruled
Invalid.

Louisville, KY, Nov. 13.-Attorneys,
for distilling interests won another
round in the fight on wartime prohibit.
zion in federal district court here
Judge Evans, in case brought BY
Louisville distillers, announced from
the bench his belief that the law is un-l
constitutional. AT the conclusion of
the pleas of attorneys he said he would
issue an injunction restraining governs
ment interference with the sale of the
distillers' taX-paid whisky. Whether
the injunction would be temporary or
permanent, the court said, rested with
Attorney General Palmer.
Victory in Rhode Island.
Providence, r. l., Nov. 13.-Judge,
Arthur L. Brown of the federal dis
trict court issued temporary injunc-
ton against Harvey A. Baker, United
States attorney, and George r. Shaun
essy, collector of internal revenue, re-.
straining them from enforcing the
provisions of the wartime prohibition
act. The injunction was issued upon
the petition of the Narragansett
Brewing company. The sale of 4 per
cent beer was Immediately resumed
by Providence liquor dealers.
The opinion is the first construction
of the Volstead prohibition enforce
menD act handed down by any court
in the country. While nominally it
restraints the federal officials in this
jurisdiction from enforcing. title of.
that act against the Narragansett
Brewing company, it virtually states
the belief of the court that the entire
wartime prohibition act is unconstitu-
tional and cannot be enforced.
Opinion of Court.
1.-THE eighteenth amendment became
a part Of the Constitution Immediately
upon it's ratification" the opinion re-
cites. ut then fixed the time at which
the powers of the states over subject
heretofore always under their control
should cease; at which the government
of the United States, the government
of the state. and municipalities should
be deprived of sources of revenue from
which millions had been derived; at
which great industries, employing
thousands of men, should cease, and at
which the value of enormous proper
ties, for the uses for which they were
designed, should be finally destroyed;
and at which there should be enforced
radical change in personal habits.
1T is incOnceivable that this would
have been done without the provision
for a period during which the loss
might be to some extent provided for
and lessened.
''The amendment provided for not
only what should be done after Janu-
airy, 1920, but by the words after one
year gave express evidence of con-
sideration and determination of the
necessity of affording to the states and
citizens and to the departments of
the federal government as well. a
period of reimbursement of their affairs
to the new conditions that would re-
suit from a transfer of powers from
the states to the federal government.
"There can be no question that the
present legislation, if valid, destroys
rights of states and citizens which, but
for that legislation, they might enjoy,
and which were respected and recog-
nized in the adoption of the amend
ment
Question of "Repugnancy."
aside from the question of the re-
pugnancy of this act to the amended
constitution, there are questions of
the most serious character as to
whether this legislation does not con-
tain provisions which go far beyond
permissible exercise of any constitu-
tional war powers.
81 am of the opinion that the time
provision contained in the eighteenth
amendment is an essential and insep-
arabic part of that amendment; that
without it, it would not have been
submitted to the people and would not
have been adopted; that it is an ex-
press provision made to cover the spe-
cial emergency of a radical change in
the Constitution, and OF obviate de-
struction of the rights of states and of
citizens"
The court in handing down its de-
cision said:
'.In view of the probability that the
act in question will ultimately be held
unconstitutional and of the irreparable
damage that would result from its i'm
mediate enforcement, and as, in view
of the evidence afforded by the presi-
dental proclamations and other cir
cumstances its Immediate enforcement
is not imperative. am convinced
that the plaintiffs right to a preilm-
mary injunction is clear"