The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1919-12-19
WAR TIME PROHIBITION
FOUND CONSTITUTIONAL
Supreme Court ..of United States
Hands Down ..Decision.-Hope
of "Wet" Christmas Goes
Clin:neriag.

Washington, Dec. 15.-By unani-
nous decision constituticr.allty OF the
war time prohibition act was sus-
tanned today by the supreme court of
the United States. The opinion
given by Associate Justice Brandels,
held in effect, however, that the war
invoked "dry" period still may be
terminated by presidential proelama-
ton of rehabilitation.
In rendering it's opinion, the court,
however, did not act on the validity
/ of the Volstead prohibition enforce
! nfent act or on appeals involving the
alcoholic contest Of beer, leaving
those cases to future opinions which
NAV be handed down next Monday
before the court recesses for the
| Christmas holidays.
Today's decision practically swept
4 away all hopes of ''wet" Christmas
as the possibilities of the war time
act being repealed before constltu-
tional prohibition becomes effective
one month from tomorrow was con-
sidered remote.
The cases decided were those OF
the Kentucky Distilleries and Ware
house company of Louisville, Ky.,, ana
Dryfos, Blum & Co., Of New York in
stituted for the purpose Of compelling
the government to release whlskey
from bond. In both cases, the court
denied contentious of Elihu Root and
other attorneys for the distillers that
the act, in violation of the constitu-
ton, takes private property without
compensation, that the period OF the
war emergency for which the act was
passed had terminated, that the law
was an interference with the state po--
lice powers and an undue exercise OF
the war powers Of congress.
Must Be Demobilization.
Congress did not intend for the war
time act to terminate on the conclu-
sion of the war but at the end of the
period of demobilizaion in the view
of the court which held that the "con-
! Aclusion of the war clearly did not
mean cessation of hostilities."
Congress, therefore, provided"
the opinion added, "that the time
when the act ceased to be operative
| should be. fixed by the presidents
Phscertaining and proclainling the
4 date when Rehabilitation had terml-
I mated"
/ Had the president on October %
l last when he vetoed the Volstead act
] believed that rehabilitation had ter
i minated. the court said che would
doubtless have issued then a procla-
to that effect, for he had mani
Tested strong conviction that re-
/ striction upon the sale OF hquor
should end"
The war time act, the court also
i. held, is not confscatory, asserting
that more than nine months were
given Mstillers to dispose of their
stocks, which time the court believed
to be, adequate. The act also was net
repealed, the court held, by the pro-
!. hibition constitutional amendment
which, it asserted, is binding not
only in peace but also IN war times.
Announcement was made tonight
that the house agriculture committee
will meet tomorrow to vote ef1 the
motion to table the bill of Representa-
tive Gallivan, Democrat, Massachu-
sets, which would repeal the war
time act. :,
Internal revenue officials explained
I tonight that the court opinion would
mot effect the bureaus plans for en-
forcing national prohibition in the
least as all preparations had been
made upon the assumption that the
ect was constitutional.
Text in Part.
Justice Brandeis' decision in part
Eollows: "The wartime 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 restrictions imposed by
the federal government Thereafter
until the end of the war and the ter
mination of mobilization, it permits
an unrestricted sale for export, and,
within the United States, sales for
! other than beverage purposes. The
uncompensated restriction upon the
disposition Of liquors imposed by this
aet is of nature far less severe than
the restrictic upon the use OF
~ roperty az "ed before the enact
lment of t..~ prohibitory statutes
= which were held to be permissible in
cares arising under the fourteenth
amendment. But no reason appears
] why state, which postpones its
effective date long enough to enable
those engaged in the business to dis
- ose of stocks on hand at the date
Of it's enactment, should be obnoxious
/ to the fourteenth amendment, or why
4 such a federal law should be obnox-
! ious to the fifth amendment.
cit is conceded that the mere ces-
sation of hostiEties under the arnls-
tice did not abridge or suspend the