The New York herald., 1920-01-06
SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS
VOLSTEAD ACT DEFINITION
OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS
cContinued Tron r>x~ on>.s


NipoYAty wovad Rxsnit w.r Powers.
Jrsttos tiraIAasSs also declared that the
war pswssv ~ Congress possess virtually
the s,r,s sasshnysty as that held by the
States ,vaisar THAR police powers, adding
az. Ia stE apInioa. the particular emer-
gency drpuSnds the immediate discontinu-
Rncs Of tho traffic. Congress must have
tho powas- to require such discontinuance.'
A disscsItiug opinion. concerned IN by the
other tha,e associate Justices. was rem
ce-es by Justice Mclxsynolda. who took
excepsion TO the majority's views regard
ing che scope OF tho war powers
The minority declared the constitution
should be iVterprcted SO that no part
should "suff e- emasculation by any
etrained or unnatural construction" by
which the publ!css rights might be iespsr-
dized
Briefs were rileG today by tho govern
rnent and New Je vsey authoritjos in con
nectton with the courts order to show
cause why original proceedings involving
she validity Of the eighteenth amendment
and provisions of the Nolstead act af-
Tecting its enforcen vent should not be
brought by the State of Rhode Island,
and on behalf OF the Retail Liquor Deal
erg Association of New Jersey A brief In
support of the New Jersey case also was
presented and arguments were made by
K v. Abbot for the plaintiffs and by So
licitor General King and Attorney Oen-
+ eral Thomas r. NcCran, OF New Jersey. in
opposition. Arguments In the Rhode ISL
and case were postponed until next Mon
day.
Rupert Case tho 7tcst
The proceedings under which today's
decision was rendered were brought by
Jacob Rupert OF New York. 10 enjoin
the government from prohibiting the sale
of 2.75 per cent beer. The case, which
was brought under the wartime act. was
ordered dismissed.
Mr. Rupert alleged that 2.75 per cent
beer was Notwithstanding. but that the
Nolstead act by limiting the alcoholic
content, prohibited the sale of beer manu-
factured under regulations prsscribed
under the Lever food control act by
President Wilson.
IF the war power of Congress- TO ef-
Sectively prohibit the manufacture and
sale of intoxicating liquors in order to
l proI-ote the nations efficiency In men.
munitions and supplies is as full and COM
plete as the police power of the States to
effectively enforce such prohibition In or
der to promote the health, safety and
morals of the community" said the ma
iority opinion '1t is clear that this provi-
%
rendered immaterial the question whether
plaintiffs beer is intoxicating. For the
legislation and decisions of the highest
courts of nearly all of the States eststb-
Lsh that 1T is deemed impossible to efrec-
lively enforce either prohibitory laws or
other laws merely regulating the manu-
facture and sale of Intoxicating liquors II
liability or inclusion within the law Is
made to depend on the issuable tact
whether or not a particular liquor
made or sold as q beverage Is tntoxicat-
ing.
THAT the federal government would, In
attempting to enforce "a prohibition law, be
confronted with difficulties similar to
those encountered by the States is obvious
and both this experience of the states ana
The need of the federal government OF
legislation defining intoxicating hQuors.
as was done in the Volstead act, was
clearly set forth in the reports or the
House judiciary Committee. Furthermore.
- the Attorney General. calling atten-
ton specifically to the claim made In re-
spect to the 2.75 per cent beer, had pointed
out to Congress that definition or lntoxi-
eating liquor by fixed standards was essen
tial to the effective enforcement OF the
prohibition law. II is therefore clear both
that Congress might reasonably have
considered some legislative definition OF IN
toxicating LIQUOR to be essential to effec-
tive enforcement of prohibition and also
I that the definition provided by the Not-
stead act was not an arbitrary one.
May Prevent Sale.
The police power of a State over the
liquor traffic is single broad power to
make such laws. by way of prohibition, as
may be required to effectively suppress the
rraffic in itoxicating liquors. Likewise the
traffic in intoxicating liquors. Likewise the
implied war power over intoxicating liquors
extends to the enactment of laws which
H. l.. 4t.4l
eating liquors, but will effectively prevent
their sale. Hardship resulting from making
an act take effect upon its passage is
frequent incident OF permissible legislation.
Here the loss resulting to the plain
tiff from inability to use the property
brewery purposes IS an incident of the pc
culiar nature of the property, and OF the
war needs which, we must assume. de-
n.anded that the discontinuance OF use
be immediate.
prohibition of the manufacture of malt
liquors with alcoholic content of one-half
of one per cent or more is permissible, be-
cause in the opinion of Congress the war
emergency demands It II In its opinion
the particular emergency demands the i'm
mediate discontinuance of tho traffic,
Congress must have the power TO require
such discont7nuancc
1T Is urged that the act is particularly
oppressive in respect to the beer on hand.
because the Plaintiff was engaged in man.
= ufacturing and selling a notwithstanding
beverage expressly authorized by the Pres
ident in his proclamation OF December 8,
1917. and prohibited by him later, only
when conservation Of all the food products
Of the country became necessary. The
facts afford no basis upon which to rest
1he claim Of an equity In the plaintiff s
favor. The specific permission from the
President to manufacture 2.75 per cent
beer was not on the ground that such beer
was Notwithstanding, nor was 1t n declara-
ton by him that this beer was in fact
non-intoxicating. The permission extended
10 all ale and porter which. every one
knows, are intoxicating liquors This per-
mission TO make 2.75 per cent beer was
withdrawn December l. 19ls under proc
lamation of September 16, 1913: and no
permission to manufacture specifically 27b
beer was ever thereafter given by the
President His later proclamation March
4. 1879 merely limited the prohibition OF
the use OF foodstuffs to use In the produc-
tion of Intoxicating liquors.
whether 2.75 beer was Intoxicating was
thus left by the President, not only with
out decision, but without even an init
nation, The statement of plaintiff that
the 2.75 beer on hand Was manufactured
under permission OF the President is