The Chattanooga news. [volume] (Chattanooga, Tenn.) 1891-1939, 1920-01-05
Prohibition Act
Held Constitutional
Supreme Court Refuses to Lift
= Ban on 2.75 Per Cent.
Beer.
BRANDEIS READS DECISION

washington, Jan. 5.-(A. P.)-The
supreme court today declared con.
stItutIonal sections of the VoIstead
prohibition enforcement act prohibit
ing the manufacture and sale of
beer, wine or other intoxicating
malt or vinous liquors" containing
one-half of per cent. or more of
alcohol.
Beer containing 2.75 per cent. of
alcohol is illegal under the wartime
prohibition act. the supreme court
decided today.
Dismissal by the lower court in
New York of injunction proceedings
brought to restrain government ot1i-
Gals from interfering with Jacob
Rupert, brewer, in the manutac-
ture of beer containing approximately
2.f5 per cent. alcohol, but alleged to
De Misunderstanding, was sustained.
Associate Justice Brandeis, who
81 rendered the opinion of the court,
salO the right OF congress to suppress
tne liquor traffic was not an implied
power, but power expressly granted.
Inc court divided 8 to 4 against AS
soclate Justices Dan, Van Devanter,
Clark and McReynolds dissenting.
Right to Stop Sale.
Under the war emergency congress
mas rlght to stop immediately the
sale of intoxicating liquor the court
held.
/, Justice McReynolds, in a dissenting
opinion, said that the Eighteenth
amendment has not set come into ef
lect and that the federal government
had no general power to prohibit the
manufacture and sale of liquor,
justice McReynolds took the position
that the war emergency uHder which
national prohibition was made effective
had passed.
In the Baltimore and New Orleans
cases the brewers contended that the
manufacture of malt or vinous liauor.
wne.her called beer or not was not H.
lesai uIhesS the liquor was intoxicatinp
rms contention, however, was denied
Dy the government, which argued that
Deer was prohibited without regard TO
lts intoxicating qualities, provided it
contained one-half of l per cent. or
more of alcohol
The court also sustained the dis
mis1al OF similar indictments brought
against the American Brewing com
pany in New Orleans.
IN deciding the New Orleans and
batlmore cases, Justice Day. in an
~
uIacture OF beer containing 275 per
cent. alcohol was Legal until the enact
ment of the Volstead act.
- INDICTMENTS brought against the
standard brewery at Baltimore and the
american Brewing company at New
orleans for manufacturing 2.75 per
cent. beer before the wartime prohibi-
tion enlorcement- act, became effective
We're ordered dismissed
II the war power of congress IN ef
tectively prohibit the manufacture and
Saie OF intoxicating liquors in order to
Poinote the nations efficiency in men,
munitions and supplies is ag fun and
complete as the police power of the
states to effectively enforce the pro-
hibition in order to promote the health
safety and morals of the community. -
the majority opinion said. "it is clear
that this provision of the Volstead act
is valid and has rendered immaterial
the question whether plaintiffs beer is
intoxicating. For the legisla ton and
decisions in the highest courts of
nearly all of the states establish that
ii is deemed impossible to effectively
enforce either prohihtorv laws or other
laws merely regulating the manufac cture
and sale of Intoxicating liquor if liza
bility or inclusions within the law is
made to depend upon the ssuable fact
whether or not particular liquor made
or sold as a beverage is ntoXicating .
That the federal government would. in
attempting to enforce a prohihitory
law. be confronted with difficulties
similar to those encountered by the
states Is obvious. and both this eXpe-
rience of the states and the need of the
federal government of legislation de-
fning Intoxicating liquors as was done
in the Volstead act was clearly set forth
in the reports of the house judiciary
committee Furthermore, the attorney
general calling attention specifically TO
the claim made in respect to the 2.75
per cent. beer. had pointed out to con-
cress that definition of intoxicating
liauor by fixed standards was essential
TO effective enforcement of the prohi-
biton law. 1t is, therefore. clear both
that congress might reasonably have
considered some legislative definition of
intoxicating liquor to he essential to ef-
fectiye enforcement of the prohibition
and also that the definition provided by
the Volstead act was not an arbitrary
one.
"Prohibition of the manufacture OF
malt liquors with alcoholic content of
one-half of one per cent. or more is per-
rnissible because, in the opinion of con-
gress. the war emergency demands II.
If. in its opinion the particular emer-
rencv demands the immediate discon-
tinuance of the traffic. congress must
have the power to require such dlscon-