The evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1914-1922, 1920-01-05
Prohibition Enforcement
Act Is Held Valid
(Cuntinurl from pagc onc.l
y tho Nolsicad act was not an arli

NANNNtNNNNFNN NNNNn NHAIN ttNNtI
hS tho Noistead act was not an arli-
E~nforccmcut Law Nalil.
The police power Of a state over
the liquor tanio n "a
single broad power to make such
laws. by way OF prohibition. as mas
be required 10 on.sctivrlv
the traffic IN Intoxicating liquors
Likewise the implied war power over
intoxicating liquors extends 10 the
enactment u laws which will not
merely prohibit the Eaic % intoxicnt-
ing liquors. but will enectraliy pre-
vent their sale. Hardship resulting
from making an act TAXI effect upon
is passage ia a frequent incident Of
permissible LEGISLATION. :
Here the loss resulting to the plaintiff
from inability 10 use the properly for
brewery purposes, Is m incident OF
the peculiar nature OF The property
and OF the war needs, which. we must
assume. demanded that the discon-
tinuance OF use be Immediate :
prohibition OF the manufacture OF
malt liquors with alcoholic content
OF one half OF M per csnt or morn
permissible because. In the oninion
OF congress. the war emergency ee-
mands IT,"
'rhe q emergency demands ~.
emergency demands the Immediate
discontinuancc OF the traffic. congress-
must have the power 10 require such
! diaComtinuancc.
as Bccf Ruhng.
at ~ urged hat the act Is par
ticularly rcprcsslve In respect 20 the
beer On hand because the plaintiff
was engaged In manufacturing and
selling a Notwithstanding beverage eN-
prcssly authorized by the president in
hts proclamation Of December \, 1917,
md prohibited by him later. only
when conservation Of all b food pro-
duets Of the country became neces'
sary. The facts afford no basis upon
which TO rest the c.aim Of an equity
In the plaintiffs favor. The specific
permission from the president to man
ufacturo 2.a5 per cent beer was not
on the ground that uch beer was non
Intoxicating. mr. was h "a declaration
by him that this beer was In fact non
Intoxicating. The permission extend
ed TO all ale and porter which are
intoxicating liquors. This permission
10 make 2.75 beer was Withdrawn
| December 1. 1918, under n proctnmn-
ton 81 September ie. 1918, and no
permission 10 manufacture spccifical-
ly 2.75 beer was ever thereafter given
/ 81 the president. His later proclamH-
ton March 4. 1870 merely limited
] NNN MNNNANANANM VI INV A"N Va AN"h
stuffs TO use IN the production ~
Intoxicating liquors. Whether 2Ti
beer was Intoxicating was thus left
hv the president. not only without a
decision. but without even an lntlma-
ton. The statement OF plaintiff tina
the 2.15 beer on hand wa manutnc-
tured under permission Of the prcsi-
dent IT, wholly ~unfounded. Il was not
until July /. 1919. when the war time
prohibition act became operative IN
this respect hat there WAS any pro-
I hihitinn OF the sale OF any liquors,
Sa far as appears all the beer which
the plaintiff had ON hand at he time
Of the passage Of the Nolstead act
was manufactured by the plaintiff
long after the president had ceased
20 have any authority 10 forbid or "a
Disscmirig Opinion
Justice McReynolds In the disscni-
Ing opinion said the problem Co De
met concerned the power Of congress
/ after "a declaration OF war, but not
when active hostilitics had onaod uAd
Generalization had been completed.
The federal government has only
| those powers granted by the constitu.
ton" he said. THE eighteenth
/ amendment not having become effec-
tive Il has no general power 10 pro-
hihit the manufacture or a ui
LIQUORS
After "a statement Of the argument
the oplul0n said that FOR sixty years
the Milligun case had been regarded
as "a splendid eNcmplificatlon Of the
protection which this court must
tend In time Of war 10 rights guar
| anteed by the constitution, and aisc
az to decisive Of its power TO ascer
tain whether actual military necessity
| justified Interference with such
! rights
"The doctrines hen clearly an
nouncod.' Justice McRcynolds Stid,
conflict with the novel n hurtfuI
theory now PROMULGATED
The Kentucky Casc
In the case Of the Kentucky DIS
tillerics and Warehouse company, tho
opinion said, the supreme court as
serted It's right to determine tho re-
lntionship between such un enact
u,cnt and the conduct OF war the do
cision really turning upon an APP
probation OF tho facts and rccog-
nized that implied power TO cnaci
such "a ~prohihltivc statute does not
spring from "a mere technical state
Of war but depends upon some exist
ing necessity directly related 60 act-
ual warfare This made tho "ulti-
mate injury" e said.
"Cnn " he truthfully said, IN view
OF the well known facts existing ON
October IS. 1919, that general pro-
hlhitlon Immediately after that day
Of the sale Of non-intoNicating beer
fnrrUtgfOre mWnIlly manufactured.