The New York herald., 1920-01-06
'Wet' Leaders Now Hope Su-
preme Court Will Declare
the Dry Amendment
Invalid.
VITAL DECISION
is YET TO CONE
Right of Congress to Define
Intoxicating Beverages" Also
Still To Be Settled.
SHARP CONTESTS AHEAD
William H. Anderson Wishes Liquor
Interests Joy in Trying to Over
turn Prohibition.

Leaders OF the forces Of the Vets
while frankly conceding. in the light Of the
Supreme Court decision. that one more
trench had been taken by the enemy. re-
mained long way from confessing them
selves fighting in their last ditch. Many
Of them found ground yet for hopefulness
in the almost equal division Of the high
tribunal and in the language OF the dis
senting opinion filed by the minority
Without exception. counsel for the So
called liquor interests expressed them
selves as hopeful Of a different deliverance
when the questions at issue do not in
volve the interpretation Of the wartime
powers Of Congress-
That hope and the basis for It were veil
defined by Il. j. Schaefer, president OF the
New York Brewers Association. When he
was seen at No. 6t7 Lexington avenue by
HERALD reporter. Mr.. Schaefer said -
MY understanding is that tho decision
upholds the right OF Congress 10 enact the
Volstead enforcement bill in SO far as war
time prohibition is concerned. That being
the case. the manufacture and sale of beer
having one-half of one per cent Of alcohol
CT more, is prohibited and the brewers arc
confined 10 manufacturing and selling
malt beverage which comes within the
limitations fixed by the volstead bill until
the end of the period Of war prohibition.
How long that period will last no one Is
In position to know. because it can only be
terminated by the declaration of peace by
the President Probably that declaration
Will await the ratification of the treaty.
Settlement StIii to Come.
The decision. however, is not conc!u-
sivc upon the ultimate right TO manu-
facture and sell Notwithstanding beer
which may have an alcoholic content of
go per cent. At the end OF the period OF
wartime prohibition there still remains 10
be settled:-First, the validity of the
Eighteenth amendment and, secondly, the
right OF Congress and the Legislatures
arbitrarily 10 fix a definition OF the term.
Intoxicating beverage
II entertain the hope, which Is founded
upon careful study and conservative ad-
vice. that, whether the amendment stands
or not, tho people will be entitled 70 en-
JOY Notwithstanding beverage, and that
such beverage will not be limited to one
nan or one per cent or alcohol, but which
may have that alcoholic content which
science and judicial Interpretation will de-
termine as not intoxicating"
William III. Hirst, attorney for the New.
York state Brewers Association. said
II have not seen the text OF the decision.
However, whatever 1t may be- IL relates
only to that part OF the Volstead bill
which deals with war prohibition. II has
no necessary bearing upon the Eighteenth
amendment. No case is before the SUI
preme Court upon which a decision was to
have been handed down today that in
wolves the validity OF the amendment it.
sell. or that raises any question OF the
powers or Congress or OF the States un-
der the amendment Those are matters
which must await further adjudication. ="
Emory r. Buckner, OF the law firm Of
Root, Clark, Buckner e. Rowland, coun-
sci for the brewers, expressed a similar
view. The decision" said he, merely
sustains the Nolstead act, which provides
methods for the enforcement OF the war
time prohibitory acts. The court has not
yet passed upon the intoxicating prop
critics of beer Of the kind recently made
by the brewers.
After Decision on Amendment.
"our case. which we have brought In
New Jersey. tho case OF Feigenspan
against the United States Attorney and
Collector of Internal Revenue, raises this
question directly. That case is designed
also TO test the validity Of the Eighteenth
Amendment. Tho decision of today Is
Continued ON Page -Four. Col. Three