Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1919-12-15

had. in an exact sense. terminated. he
would doubtless have issued then q
proclamation to that effect, for he had
manifested strong conviction that
restriction upon the sale of liquor
should end Only by such proc.ama-
ton could the purpose. of Congress
be attained. and the serious conss-
Quences attending uncertainty be OBJ
waited.
Decentralization Date Discussed.
But in fact demobiliza ton had no.
terminated at the time of the veto or
the act of October %. 1919. or at the
time these suits we're begun; and for
aught that appears 1t has not yet
terminated. The report of the Secre-
tary of War made to the President.
under date of November 1. 1919 (and
transmitted to Congress on Decem-
rehabilitation. shows page I'D that
during the preceding ten days (No-
vember to 10) 2.o1S officers and TO-
266 enlisted men had been discharged,
the rate of discharge being substan-
TALLY the same as during the month
of October. in which $3.50 officers and
$4,000 enlisted men were discharged.
Act Held Valid.
The wartime prohibition act be-
ing thus valid and still in force. the
decree in Number $50 (the Kentucky
case) IS reversed and the case is re-
manded to the District court with di
rections to dismiss the bill: and the
decree in Number COZ the New York
case) is affirmed"
Attacked In Three Appeals.
Cnnstitutionality Of the wartime
prohibition and the prohibition en-
forcement laws was attacked in the
Supreme Court in three different ap-
peals. One came from Kentucky:
where the former statute was hetd
invalid; two came from New York.
where both acts were sustained.
Besides the millions Of dollars in
vested in brewery and distilling
mately 100000 gallons OF whisky.
valued alone at between S100.00O.O0O
and 100000 900. according to internal
revenue officials estimates.
The cases Of the Kentucky Distl.
leries and Warehouse Company Of
Louisville. KY. and Dryfoos. Blum 4
Co. of New York were virtually iden-
teal and resulted from efforts to
compel the government to release
whisky from bond. The third case
an appeal Of Jacob Rupert Of New
York. brewer, involved authority
under the acts to manufacture beer
containing SI5 per cent alcohol.
Arguments in Cases.
In arguing the cases before the Su-
last Elihu Root and others. appear
ing in opposition to the prohibition
acts, contended that wartime prohi
bition was unconstitutional because
Congress had no power to prohibit
tine sale OF III toX;cants within state
except under its war power. which had
ceased: that the act conflicted with
the fcti. constitutional amendment.
prohibiting the taking of private
property without just compensation
and that the war had terminated,
making the act obsolete and invalid.
1t was also commended that the Vol
stead law Uhe prohibition enforce
ment act) by fixing one-half of one
per cent as the maximum amount of
alcohol in beverages. established
new standard for intoxicants. Mr..
Root also commended that the consti-
tutional prohibition amendment al
lowed liquor dealers a year of grace"
to enable them to readjust their affairs
to meet changed conditions. but de-
spite t''e amendment, which he ar
gued was virtually contract between
Congress and the states, the liquor
business had been constantly heckled
with legislation by prohibitionists in
Congress seeking to advance the time
for national prohibition.
These contentious were generally
refuted by Solicitor General King and
William L. Frierson. assistant attor-