The American issue. [volume] (Westerville, Ohio) 1912-19??, 1920-01-16
Congress Has Power to De.
fine lntoxicants
EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT
DEMANDS FIXING LIMIT
President Could Not Legaiize The
Manufacture of Beer
The LAST WET HOPE IS KILLED

Whisky met its Waterloo on De-
ccmber 18th when the Supreme Court
OF the United States upheld wartime
Prohibition. Beer received its final
death sentence on January 5th wher
the Supreme Court upheld the validity
Of the Volstcad Enforcement Act in
Guiding the section which defines in-
toxioating liquors as all containing
more than one-half OF ono per cent
alcohol.
The opinion upholding the law was
rendered in the case brought by Jacob
Rupert OF New York to enjoln the
government from prohibiting the sale
Of 275 beer The court was divided
5 TO 4, Associate Justices Day, Van
devanter. Clarke, and McReynods
dissenting. The majority opinion
was read BY Associate Justice Bran
deis. 1t is In part as follows;
!. III the war power OF Congress TO
effectively prohibit the manufacture
and sale OF Intoxicating liquors in or
der to promote the nations efficiency
in men, munitions and supplies, is as
full and complete as the police power
OF the states to effectively enforce
such Prohibition, in order to promote
the health, safety and morals of the
community ii is clear that this pro-
vision OF the Nolstead act is valid and
has rendered immatcrlal the question
whether plaintiffs beer Is Intoxicating.
For the legislation and decisions
OF the highest courts OF nearly all OF
the states establish that it is deemed
impossible TO effectively enforce either
prohbitory laws or other laws merely
regulating the manufacture and sale
OF Intoxicating liquors, il liability or
inclusion within the law is made TO
depend upon the issuable fact whether
or not particular liquor made or sold
as a beverage is Intoxicating.
Fixed Standard Needed
That the federal government
would, in attempting TO enforce pro-
hibitory law be confronted with diff
cultics similar to those encountered
by the states is obvious; and the need
OF the federal government of legisla-
ton defining Intoxicating liquors, as
was done in the Volstcad act, was
clearly set forth in the reports OF the
house judiciary committee.
Furthermore, the attorney general
fcalling attention specifically to the
claim made in respect to the 275 per
cent beer, had pointed out to Con-
gress that definition of Intoxicating
liquor by fixed standards was essen
tial to effective enforcement of the
Prohibition law. 1t is therefore clear
both that Congress might reasonably
have considered some legislative def
nition of Intoxicating liquor to be
essential to effective enforcement OF
Prohibition and also that the defini-
ton provided by the Volstead act was
not All arbitrary one.
Takes Up Loss to Brewers
THE police power of state over
the liquor traffic is a single broad
power to make such laws, by way OF
Prohibition, as may be required TO
effectively suppress the traffic in in
toxicating liquors Likewise, the i'm
piled war power over Intoxicating liq-
uors extends TO the enactment OF laws
which will not merely prohibit the
sale of Intoxicating liquors, but will
effectually prevent their sale.
Hardship resulting from making
an act take effect upon its passage is
a frequent incident of permissible leg
islation. Here the loss re-
sulting to the plaintiff from inability
TO use the property for brewery pur-
leoses, is an incident of the peculiar
nature Of the property and OF the war