The Holly chieftain., 1920-01-08
United States Supreme
Court Hits Booze.
fWo.SEvENrY-YIVE BEER
ALSO GETS THE KyB0SH
Judge Brandsis Says the Right Of
Congress to Suppress Liquor r.
0Eantsd-Court, However, Il
Divided on This Opinion.

COnU6lueU III MOIlu6y uIsutb DcIl'
yer Times:
WASHINGTON, Jan. 5.-Uphold-
ing the constitutiOnality of the
most vital section of the Volstead
enforcement law, the supreme court
today declared that 2:75 per cent
beer and other near beers contain
ing one-half Of / per cent or more
of alcohol cannot be sold under
wartime prohibition.
The action Of the government in
prohibiting the sale of 2.75 per
cent beer both before and after
the Volstead law was passed on
October %, 1919, was upheld.
Associate Justice Brandeis, who
rendered the opinion of the court,
said the right OF congress to sup
press the liquor traffic was not an
implied power, but power ex-
preSsly granted
Under the war emergency con-
gress has q right to stop immedi-
ately the sale OF Intoxicating liqu-
or, the court held.
The court divided, five to four,
Associate justices Day, Vandeyent-
er, Clarke and McReynolds dissent
ing.
The important feature OF the de-
cision is that the court upheld the
action of congress in declaring in
tOxicating, and preventing the sale,
of all beverages containing Onehalf
of l per cent or more of alcohol, by
volume. with the exception of
homemade cider and wine.
The case decided today was an ap-
peal from the New York federal
courts, brought by Jacob Rupert,
brewery corporation. The lower
court dismissed injunction proceed
ings brought by Rupper to re-
strain federal agents from interfer-
ing with sale of 2.75 per cent beer.
Supporting in every way the con-
tentfOns OF the government and con-
gress, just as the opinion of the
court did when wartime prohibi-
ton was declared constitutional by
unanimous vote, the decree Of the
supreme tribunal apparently
means real bone-dry nation
Likewise it dispels the hope of
the liquor interests for any fitting
OF the lid either at present or un-
der constitutional prohibition, 1t is
believed here
The financial interests involved
in the decision today are estimated
at $10O,0OO,OOO by the liquor attor-
neys, including the amount OF near
beer on hand and the property for
its manufacture which will be rem
dered virtually useless. One hope
OF the liquor interests was to con.
vert many old-time breweries into
plants for the making of the 2.75
per cent product
The New York federal court up-
held the VOlstead law in its defini-
tion OF intoxicating liquor under
wartime prohibition in suit
brought by Rupert. The appeal
was then taken to the supreme
court and the case argued by Elihu
Root.
The Rupert brewery contended
that congress exceeded its powers
in enacting the VOlstead law en-.
forcing wartime prohibition, be-
cause by its definition of intoxicat.
ing liquor it prohibited the sale of
beverages manufactured under reg
uiatiOns prescribed under the Lev.
er food control act by President
Wilson. The ATTORNEYS sought ia
prove that 2.75 beer was not in.
toxicating and pointed out that
the original wartime prohibition
law affected only beer, wines or
other Intoxicating malt or yinons
liquors" 1S
a long argument was made by
ROOT to show that the word "othcr"
as appearing In the phrase Of the
law, should be carried back to the
W0ras Deer" and wine" thus pro
nlDiLing the sale only of intoxicat.
ing beer and wine.
stimson Census Enumerator.