The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1919-12-15
War Powers of Government

War Powers of Government
He also called attention to the
continued control of the rail-
roads and the resumption of
powers by the government rela-
tive to coal and sugar under war
acts to show that the govern
ment continues to exercise va
rious war powers despite the
signing Of the ,armistice.
Justice Brandeis said there
was no basis for the contention
that President Wilson's state
ment in his message vetoing the
prohibition enforcement act that
the war had come to an end was
proclamation announcing the
termination of the war.
The judgment Of the court in
the Kentucky and New York
cases was unanimous.
The court will render opinion
again next Monday, at which
time the beer cases are expected
to be decided, after which the
court will recess until January S.
Upon the courts decision on
the prohibition enforcement law,
which is expected early in Jan
uary. will depend whether the
federal government has at hand
any legal means for making the
amendment effective. The con-
stitutionality of wartime prohi-
bition, the vets are confident,
will keep the country dry until
the amendment is carried into
effect by law Of it's own.
READ BY JUSTICE BRANDEis.
The decision Of the supreme court
today deciding appeals from Ken
lucky and New York involving the
| constiutionality of the wartime pro-
hibition act was read by Associate
Justice Brandeis.
Federal court DEGREES in New York
! d!smissing proceedings brought by
| Dryfoss, Blum & Co., to compel inter
nal revenue officials to permit the
withdrawal from bond of Whiskey for
beverage purposes We're affirmed by
| the court.
In deciding the question the su-
preme court also dissolved injunc-
tions restraining revenue officials
from interfering with the removal
from bond of about 7O,o0O,oOO gal
Ions OF whiskey valued at approxi-
mately $4,000, 900 held by the Ken
tucky distilleries and warehouse
companies of Louisville. Ky.
| History of Case.
Constitutionality Of the War time
! 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 held in
valid. Two came from New York
where both acts were sustained.
Beside the millions Of dollars invest.
ed in brewery and distilling plants the
decision affects approximately 8O,OOO.-
600 gallons of whiskey valued alone at
between $10O,OO0OOO and $780, O,OOO, 600
according to internal revenue officials
estimates.
The case Of the Kentucky Distiller-
les and Warehouse Company Of Louis
VILE, KY. and Dryfoos. Blum 4 Com
pany Of New York were virtually iden-
tical and resulted from efforts to com
pei the government to release whiskey
from bond. The third case, an appeal
of Jacob Rupert, a brewer Of New
York, involved authority under the
acts to manufacture beer containing
2.75 percent alcohol.
/ In arguing the. cases before the SUI
lnremc Court on Nov. 20 and d, 1919,
Elihu Root and other appearing in
deposition to the prohibition acts con-
tended that wartime prohibition was
unconstitutional because Congress had
4 no power to prohibit the sale Of In.
lroXicants mithin a state except under
its war power which had ceased; that
the act conflicted with the Fifth con.
, stitutional amendment prohibiting the
taking of private property without
just compensation and that the war
= had terminated. making the net obse.
! lete and invalid. 1t was also contend.
! ed that the yolstead law (the prohibit
! ton enforcement act) by fixing one
/ half Of one percent AS the maximum
amount of alcohol in beverages, estab
7 lished new standard for intoxicants
Mr.. Root also contended that the Con
t stitutional Prohibition amendment al
e lowed liquor dealers a wear Of grace
d to, enable. them. to -readjnst. their af
IL lIfairs to meet, changed conditions bu