Evening star., 1920-01-05

ing liquors. In order to make such
a prohibition effective the sale Of nom
Intoxicating beer must be forbidden.
Wherefore. from the implied power
to prohibit intoxicants. the further
power to prohibit this non-intoxicant
must be implied.
The query at once arises: If all
this be true. why may not the second
implied power engender q third un-
der which Congress may forbid the
planting Of barley or hops. the manu-
factUre of bottles or kegs. etc.
For sixty years eX parte Mllllgan
has been regarded as a splendid ex-
emplification of the protection which
this court must extend in time OF
war to rights guaranteed by the Con-
stitution, and also as decisive OF ITS
power to ascertain whether actual
military necessity justified interfer-
ence with such rights. The doctrines
then clearly may add, courageous
ly-announced conflict with the novel
and hurtful theory now promulgated
by considering the circumstances
existing when the wartime prohibit
ton act was challenged, in order 10
reach the conclusion announced IN
Hamilton, collector, VS. Kentucky
Distilleries and Warehouse Company
supra. this court asserted its right
to determine the relationship between
such an enactment and the conduct
of war; the decision there reaiiy
turned upon an appreciation OF tne
facts. And that the implied power 10
enact such a prohibitive statute does
not spring from mere technical
state of war. but depends upon some
existing necessity directly related 10
actual warfare, was recognized
whether these essentials existed
when a measure was enacted OF mai
lenged- presents question 1or une
courts; and, accordingly, we must
come to this ultimate inquiry: Can
it be truthfully said, in view OF the
week known facts existing on DC
tober 2S, 1919, that general prohibi :
ton Immediately after that day Oh
the sale Of non,intoxicatihg nesr
Heretofore lawfully manufactured,
could afford any direct and appreci-
able aid in respect of the war declar-
ed against Germany and Austrian!
Justice McReynolds reviewed the
events subsequent to the signing OF
the armistice and statements MADE
by President Wilson in official COM
munications relative to the termina-
tion Of the war, and added:
Giving consideration to this state
of affairs, 1 can see no reasonable
relationship between the war de-
clared in 1917 or the demooillzation
following (both of which, in essence,
if not by formal announcement. ter
minated before October, 1919 or
restoration of peace (whose quiet had
already descended upon us) and de-
struction of the value of complain J.
ants beverage, solemnly admitted In
this record to be Notwithstanding
and which it manufactured. held and
desired to sell in strict compliance
with the laws Of New York. Nor can
/ discover any substantial ground
for holding that such destruction
could probably aid in an appreciabie
way the enforcement of any prohibi-
ton law then within the competency
of Congress to enact. 1t is not enough
merely to assert such a probability
it must arise from the facts.
Moreover. we'll settled rights OF
the individual in harmless property
and powers carefully reserved to the
states ought not to be abridged or de-
stroyed by mere augmentation based
upon supposed analogies. The Con-
stitution should be interpreted in
view of the spirit which pervades 1t
and always with a steadfast purpose
to give complete effect to every part,
according to the true intendm ent-
none should suffer emasculation by
any strained or unnatural construc-
ton"