Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1920-06-07
ENFORC CEMENT ACT !.
ALSO is HELD TO
BE CONSTITUTIONS
( Attorney For Brewers Says
Result is Not What Peo-
pie Want.
Hinshaw Says rohibiton
Party Will Continue to
Fight.

Fight.
i..---S------.f, H,,,.
Washington, Junes Both the
federal prohibition amendment and
the enforcement act passed by con-
gress were held constitutional today
by the supreme court. Y
Injunctions restraining prohibition
officials from interfering with the
Manitowoc Products company, a Wis
consin corporation. in the manufac-
tnre of beer containing more than
half of one per cent of alcohol were
dissolved by the court.
The court upheld federal court de-
crees dismissing proceedings brought
>to enjoin the prohibition amendment
from being enforced against Christian
Feigenspan, brewer OF Newark,
N. a. sf III .a455
The court also dismissed injunction
proceedings brought by the state Of
New Jersey to prevent enforcement OF
prohibition within that state.
The court dismissed petitions filed
by the, state of Rhode Island to have
federal officials enjoined from egforc-
ing prohibition in that state.
Federal court DEGREES denying SINH
lar injunctions sought by the st.
Louis Brewing association likewise
Opinion Unanimous.
The courts opinion on the main is
ciate justices McKenna and Clark,
however, dissented in part. y.
Federal court DEGREES dismissing
injunction proceedings instituted by
the Kentucky distilleries and ware
House company of Louisville, KY, to
enjoin enforcement Of the act against
y srf In
functions sought by George c. Demp-
!, sey, a Boston wholesale liquor dealer.
TO- restrain enforcement of the en-
&forcement act against him we're also
denied by the court
rs Associate JuStice McReynolds,
while not dissenting from the courts
opinion, said ,;he confined his con
possible to say what construction.
should he given to the eighteenth
asnendment.s iA multitude 5of questions
will arise and 4 prefer to remain free
when they. ariser
Z 4 50. & !. .t,.,5 :. Il. sMcKenna's Opinion.
Assactats Justice NacKenna. in still
aas1asE H ealRisHa sssa 80 con c,,,,ton.
only without giving reasons for them.
I must 81 = least axcuse,if Iicannot JUS
Justice MEX efinra said the Rhode
Island and New Jersey cases should
have been decided on their merits. He
added that he dldsnot agree with; the
action Of the court in reversing the
Wisconsin case. III ~ II 4.
Z, While the vote Of the court on the
nohnced, It IL known that at least
Justice McKenTa dissented.
Fight Not Over. @
Chicago, June Virgil G. Hin
shaw, chairman Of the prohibition
party said: "'These decisions clinch
the greatest reform victory in the
history Of the, country and perhaps
in the history of mankind.
"The prohibition party will mot,
however, vacate the field until one OF;
both of the major political parties
have spoken in their platforms MAX
ing the Volstead act or some measure
equally effective their settled party
4 policy"
Mayer Makes Statement.
Levy Mayer of Chicago, who ar
gued the case for the distiliers in the
supreme court, said on hearing of the
decision: - 4.
II advanced every possible legal
argument The avenue. Of the courts
IL now exhausted. 4 .E
NJ feel" added Mr.. Mayer, that
the people will, after CALM reflection
and experience, want. II have done
my duty to my clients and the people
in general and the next step is up to
them.
Il have not seen any Of the opinion
and therefore can make no further
comment at this tim1," s8
NJ Mr.. Mayer represented the state OF
Kentucky, the. Kentucky Distilleries
and Warehouse company. owners OF
practically all OF the distillery plants
In Kentucky. and the owners OF
about 100000, 900 gallons Of spirits
apd alcohol in bond.
u washington. June 7.-validity Of
the prohibition amendment and por.
tionA. Of the enforcement act was In.
volved in separate proceedings before
the supreme. court. Two Of these were
original suits brought by Rhode Isl.
! and and New Jersey as sovereign
states to enjoin their enforcement n
their Jurisdictions upon the grounds
that both enactments were unconsti:
tutiona1. The other cases were direc
appeals from lower court DEGREES. ~
Steps to institute suits were taker
Immediately after the amendment be.
K came effective on, January 16. and OF
motion Of counsel their consideration
was expedited. , N * /
In both the Rhode Island ana New
Jersey suits the validity Of the Eight
\ eonth Amendment was attacked, bu
i the New Jersey case also alleged tina
even II the amendment were valid
I. the enforcement act was unconstitu
tional because It had not been con
CURED in by New Jersey under nro
visions of the amendment giving tht
federal and state governments con
current power to enforce prohibition
New Jersey also contended that il tn,
entire enforcement act were not un
sdconstitutonai. the portions Of 1t limit
4hG the alcoholic content sof baSer1ge
u to lees than one-half Of one per cen
ana relating TO the Il dispensinzs o
LIQUORS for medicinal purposes werl
invalid. Is S.;S 's5s. !. Ss
The cases reaching the court onsap
peals were those Of the Kentucky Dts
tilIars Il and Warehouse Company
81 Christians Feigenspan. e Newark, n