New-York tribune., 1920-03-31
: Dry Evidence
Manufactured ,
Guthrie Hints
Makes Yelled Charges in
Argument That Foes of
Liquor Use Foul Tactics
to Influence High Court
Quotes Author of Act
Says Volstead's View of the
House Committee Attitude
Conflicts With Others

WASHINGTON, March 30.-Argu-
ments On the constitutionality Of the
prohibition amendment and portions
of the enforcement act were concluded
to-day in the Supreme Court. Seven
separate proceedings now rest with
the court for determination.
The arguments to-day were on ap-
peals brought by Christian Feigenspan,
of Newark, N. j.. from Federal Court
DEGREES dismissing injunction proceed
ings to enjoin prohibition officials
from preventing him from manufacture
ing beer containing more than one
half of / per cent. alcohol and on gov
ernment appeals from judgments re-
straining officials from interfering
with the Manitowoc Products Company
a Wisconsin concern, in the manufac-
ture of beer containing 2.5 per cent of
alcohol by volume.
William ID. Guthrie, appearing in the
former, contended that by the words
concurrent power to enforce" Con-
gress intended for the Federal govern
ment and the states to enforce prohi-
bition with identical legislation and
that the states were to give their ap-
proval to enforcement legislation be-
fore becoming effective.
1--WE submit that the state Legisia-
lures must have understood that the
amendment provided for concurrent en-
forcement as the amendment states,
Mr.. Guthrie said. "Thc construction
result in practically the complete loss
of state control. If this point were
between individuals we might we'll call
it point of fair conduct and morality"
Yelled charges that evidence was be-
ing manufactured" by prohibition sup
porters to influence the court in con-
nection with its consideration Of the
prohibition question were made bv Mr..
Guthrie. He called attention to an
extension of remarks" by Representa-
tive .Volstead, author of the enforce
sional Record" last week, giving what
was in the minds of members of the
House Judiciary Committee in 1917,
while framing the prohibition amend
ment.
These views. Mr.. Guthrie said, con-
tiicted with other statements made by
various members of both Houses in
connection with the amendment.
Mr.. Guthrie also referred to letters
written by Senators, POSSIBLY for the
Anti-Saloon League, and Expressing
what they now think they then
thought"
Ralph w. Jackman, representing the
Manitowoc Products Company, took the
position that by Concurrent power"
Congress intended that the Federal en-
forcement act was to be supreme until
q state had enacted enforcement legis-
lation, when the latter was to have
complete control in enforcing prohibit
ton within it's borders. He also de-
Tended the validity of the Mulberger
act permitting the manufacture in Wis
consin of beer containing 2.5 per cent
alcohol, which, he contended, was not
Intoxicating.
"When Wisconsin ratified the pro-
hibition amendment" he said, cit had
no idea that 1t was to be prohibited
from enacting legislation relative to
on-intoXicating beverages"
Replying to Mr.. Jaclsman, Solicitor
General King argued that were that
theory of concurrent power true, then
the states would have exclusive power,
adding that in his opinion the term
meant that both Congress and the
states were given authority to enact
legislation for the enforcement of
prohibition, but neither had power to
stand in the others way regarding en-
forcement.
Assistant Attorney General Frierson
contended that the Supreme Courts
recent opinion in appeals brought by
Jacob Rupert, the New York brewer,
sustaining Congresses authority under
it's war powers to prescribe the maxi
mum alcoholic content of beverages
virtually settled the validity of that
provision.