Wausau pilot. [volume] (Wausau, Wis.) 1896-1940, 1920-01-13
U. S. COURT FINDS
ITS BEER ILLEGAL
Supreme Tribunal UphoIds the
ConstitutionaIity of Vol
stead Act.
ENFORCEMENT LAW 0. KID
Decision Rendered at Washington
Sets Limit at one-Half of One
Per Cent of Alcohol for All
Beverages.

Washington, Jan. 6.-The Supreme
court declared constitutional sections
Of the Volstead prohibition enforce
ment act. prohibiting the manufacture
and sale of ''beer, wine or other in
toxicating malt or vinous liquors"
containing one-half of one per cent or
more of alcohol
Beer containing 2.75 per cent of al
cohol is illegal under the act. the
court declared.
Associate Justice Brandeis, who rem
dered the opinion of the court, said
the right of congress to suppress the
liquor traffic was not an implied pow
er, but a power expressly granted.
Under the war emergency congress
has a right to stop Immediately the
sale of intoxicating liquor. the court
held.
The court divided. 8 to 4, Associate
Justices Day. Vandevanter Clarke end
McReynofds dissenting.
Justice McReynolds, in a dissenting
opinion, said that the eighteenth
amendment had not yet come into eff
feet and that the federal government
had no general power to prohibit the
manufacture of liquor
He took the position that the war
emergency under which national prohi-
bition was made effective. had passed.
Dismissal by the lower court in New
York Of injunction proceedings brought
to restrain government officials from
interfering with Jacob Rupert,
brewer, in the manufacture of beer
containing approximately 2.75 per cent
alcohol, but alleged to be nonintoxi-
eating, was sustained.
The government filed in the SUI
preme court its answer to the applica-
ton Of the state of, Rhode Island for
permission to institute original pro-
ceedings to test the constitutionality
Of the national prohibition constitution
al amendment
AT the same time Attorney General
Thomas F. McCran of New Jersey
asked dismissal of similar proceedings
brought on behalf of the Retail Liquor
Dealers association of New Jersey to
enjoin state and federal authorities
from enforcing the amendment in that
state. A brief in support of the asso-
cations case also was filed by counsel
for the organization.
Attorney General McCran reiterated
the contention made by the govern
ment in its reply filed last Saturday
that the Supreme court had no juris-
diction in New Jersey case and ar
gued that the state could not compul-
sOrily be made sutton In an original
action in the Supreme court instituted
by a citizen of that state. He also
said New Jersey statutes barred cit
izen from bringing legal proceedings
against the state without it's consent.
If the procedure of enactment was
valid the brief asserted, 1t follows
that "a bare two-thirds of a bare ma
jority of the membership of the two
houses in congress. and a bare major
ity of the state legislatures can con-
stitutionally adopt any amendment to
the constitution which they may de-
sire"
"In other words" it continued. "a
group of public officials, which at the
maximum may be less than $500, and
at the minimum may be less than l.
400. hold in their hands the Constitu-
ton of the United States and't the prop
erty, the liberty and even the lives
Of 100000 of people Their power.
if the eighteenth amendment has
been cCnStitutiOnally adopted, is alb
solute and arbitrary beyond that of
any group of men known to history"
Solicitor General King, In his brief,
alleged that the state Of Rhode Island
failed to state facts warranting orig
inal proceedings. If the case is one
that should be instituted, he added,
the federal government should be
named as defendant. but that could be
done only with consent of the gov
eminent