Evening star., 1920-01-05
Bars Beverages of
Half Per Cent
or More.
VOTE ON RULING
STANDS S TO 4
Suit to Enjoin u. S.
Prohibiting 2.75 Beer
Dismissed.

Dismissed.
The prohibition enforcement act de-
hnine as Intoxicating any beverage
containing one-Ialf of l per cert or
more of alcohol was declared cohselIu
t!oral today by the Supreme Court OF
the United States in an opinion on
which the court divided. to A..
Proceedings brought by jacob Rup-
pert of New York to enjoln the
government from prohibiting the sale
of 2.75 per cent beer were ordered as
missed
Ruppert's case was brought under
the wartime act. He alleged that 20
per cent beer was non-lntoNicaeins
but that the Volstead act. by limltihs
the alcoholic content. prompted lile
sale of beer manufactured under resu-
lations prescribed under the Lever
food control act by President Wilson
Congress Has Power.
Under the war emergency Con-
sress has a right to stop imme-
diately the sale of Intoxicating
LIQUOR the court held
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 express
edly granted.
The court divided. 5 to 4. Asso-
ciate Justices Day. Van Devante:.
McReynolds and Clarke dissenting;
In deciding the New Orleans and Bal
timore cases Justice Day. in a unani-
nous opinion held that the manufacture
of beer containing 2.75 per cent alcohol
was legal until the enactment OF the
Nolstead act
Indictments brought against the
Standard Brewery. at Baltimore ana Ine
American Brewing Company. at New Or
leans. for manufacturing 2.lo per cent
beer before the wartime prohibition en-
forcement act became effective were or
dered dismissed.
Justice McReynolds in dissenting
opinion said that the eighteenth
amendment had not yet come into
effect and that the federal govern
ment had no general power to pro-
hibit the manufacture and sale OF
liquor.
Text Of Opinion In Part.
The opinion, in part, follows:
IF the war power of Congress TO ell
fectively prohibit the manufacture and
sale of intoxicating liquors inAordsrd
to promote the nations efficiency In
men, munitions and supplies is as fuli
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 com
munity, it is clear that this provision
of the Volstead act is valid. and has
rendered immaterial the question
whether plaintiffs beer is intoxicat-
ing.
of the highest courts of nearly all
of the states establish that it is
deemed impossible to effectively en-
force either prohibitory laws or other
laws merely regulating the manufac-
ture and sale of intoxicating liquors
if liability or inclusion within the
law is made to depend upon the is
suable fact whether or not partic-
ular liquor made or sold as a bev-
erage is intoxicating. In other words.
it clearly appears that liquor law.
to be capable of effective enforce
ment, must, in the opinion of the leg
islatures and courts of the several
states. be made to apply either to all
liquors of the species enumerated.
like beer. ale or wine. regardless of
the presence or degree of alcoholic
content; or if a more general descrip-
tion is used, such as distilled. recti-
fed, spirtuous, fermented, malt or
Erewed liquors. to all liquors within
that general description regardless
of alcoholic content; or to such of
these liquors as contain named per-
centage of alcohol; and often several
such standards are combined that
certain specific and generic liquors
are altogether forbidden and such
other liquors as contain a given per-
centage of alcohol
Police Power of States.
ne pOllce power d state over
the liquor traffic is not limited to the
power to prohibit the sale of intoxicat-
ing liquors supported by separate
implied power to prohibit kindred nom
Intoxicating liquors so far as neces-
sary to make the prohibition of in
toXicants effective; it is a single broad
power to make such laws. by way of
prohibition. as may be required to eff
fectively suppress the traffic in intoxi-
eating liquors. Likewise the implied
;v,t~
extends to the enactment of laws
which will not merely prohibit the
sale of intoxicating liquors. but will
efectually prevent their sale.
The power conferred to make all
laws which shall be necessary and
proper for carrying into execution
powers specifically enumera.ed is
also an express power. Since Con-
gress has power to increase war ef-
fciency by prohibiting the liquor
traffic. no reason appears why it
should be denied the power to make
its prohibition effective.
Prohibition of the manufacture
Of malt liquors with alcoholic con-
tent of one-half of one per cent or
more is permissible because in the
opinion of Congress, the war cmer-
gency demands it. IT, in its opinion
the particular emergency demands
the immediate discontinuancc of the
traffic. Congress must have the pow
er to require such discontfnuancc.
ITO limit the power of Congress so
that il may require discontinuance
only after the lapse of a reasona BILE
time from the passage of the act
would seriously restrict it in the ex-
ercise of the war powers. Hardship
resulting from making act take
effect upon its passage is a frequent
incident of permissible Legislation.
But whether ii shall be imposed rests
wholly in the discretion of the law
making body. Here the loss resulting
to the plaintiff from inability to use
the property for brewery purposes is
AN incident of the peculiar nature of
- property and of the war needs
which We must assume. demanded
that the discontinuance of use be i'm
mediate.
Action of Congress.
Plaintiff cannot complain because
discontinuance later would have
caused him smaller loss This, in
deed appears to be conceded SO far
as concerns the brewery and appur-
t, .ances The objection on the ground
II / the prohibition takes effect i'm
mediateIy is confined to the prohibit
ton of the sale of the beer on hand
1T the time of the passage of the act.
But as to that, also, we cannot say