The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1920-01-10
HIGHEST COURT
DECLARES Law
Decision on Prohibition Settles
Law as to Power Of
Congress
MAY DEFINE WHAT is
INTOXICATING LIQUOR
Liquor Men Have Little Ground
Left for Continuation of Fight
Against Law

Washington, Jan. By a margin
Of one vote the supreme court, TO-DAY
upheld the right Of congress to de-
! fine intoxicating liquors, in so far as
+ applied to wartime prohibition.
i In a FIVE to four opinion rendered
+. by Associate Justice Erandeis the
court sustained the constitutionality'
! Of provisions IL the Eolstead prohibi-
! ton enforcement act prohibiting the
manufacture and sale Of bevreagcs
containing one-half Of l per cent. or
! more OF alcohol. Associate Justices
Day, Van Devanter, McReyaolds and
| Clarke dissented.
Validity Of the federal prohibition
constitutional amendment and Of por-
| tons of the Volstead act affecting its
! CT forcement was not involved in the
{ proceedings, but the opinion was re-
garded as so sweeping as to leave
little hope among wet" adherents
In rendering the opinion. the court
| sustained federal court DEGREES dis
missing injunction proceedings to en-
join federal authorities from prevent
! ing Jacob Rupert. New York
brewer, from manufacturing beer
containing in excess Of one-half of 1
per cent, but which he alleged was
Notwithstanding.
The vets" however. received
brief ray of hope when shortly after
wards Associate Justice Day IN an
unanimous opinion sustained the dis
missal of indictments brought under
the war time prohibition act again:',
the Standard Rrewry of Baltimore
and The American Brewing company
cf New Orleans for manufacturing
30 beer before the Nolstead ;tct was
;:.:ed.
Following the rendering of -today.s
opinion. Assistant Attorney General
Flierson. who has been in charge OF
tf: prohibition cases in the supreme
coi,:.. announced that the departna ent
! oss justice was ready to begin prose
cution Of all persons who have sold
bee, since the passage last October %
OF the Nolstead act. The names OF
/ persons violating the act have been
obtained by the department and card
ildexed and prosecutions, he said,
would begin at once.
Characterizing the action of the su
prene court as sweeping victory
/ Wayne 3. Wheeler, general conusel
I; for the 4inti-SalCon league Of Aneri-
ca. declared IN u statement tonight
that the only question LETT open on
which the liquor interests could make
! a fight was whether the 18th amend
ment to the constitution was legally
adopted Antisaloon forces, he said,
had no fear of successful attack y!
that direction.
The decision sustained. Mr.. Wheeler
said, the constitutionality Of P"cv1s-
ions defining Intoxicating lir;crs 10
/ mean any beverage which co:i::'i.:;
onc-half of per cent. or more alco-
!lol IL also sustained, he added, the
power Of congress to prohibit such
liquor and have the law take effect
J at once without violating the consti-
tuition.
The decision in the RUPERT case.
he said. lis based on the contention
which we urged before congress. that
! if lhe congress had power to enact
law, il carried with it the power TO
/ enact law having q reasonable re-
! lation to it. to make the original act
; effective and enforceable. This prin-
! ciple applies to the permanent prohi-
bition enforcement code, and it settles
! its validity.
This being true. all of the leSis-
lation in the States purportins to Ii
cense wine and beer of u stronger al
! coholic content will be void.
The second point in the Rupert
case. relating to compensation. will
! have some bearing upon the claim
that liquor dealers are entitled to COM
ncn~ation under tho permanent code.
In tic Euprcrt case, the court held
that the Nolstead act to enforce War
( prohibition could become operative
at once.
Under the 18th amendment, one
years notice was given to- the liquor
dealers when permanent prohibition
would go into effect. It is clear. how
ever. that the permanent code will be
sustained on the reasoning set fort!
in the original case sustaining war
prohibition. 1t held that seven months
was q reasonable notice. and it is val
i'll also on the reasoning of Justice
,Eian;lcis in the Rupert case
The question of compensation and
the power to define intoxicating
liquor is a closed question in the light
of these decisions. The decision
holding that the original war prohi-
hi'on act only applied to intoxicating
liquors is of no practical value to tho
brewers because since October 2S it
has been unlawful to sell even one
half OF l percent. beer.
About the only question left open
fer the liquor interests now is wheth-
or the 18th amendment is Of such n
nature that it could be considered an
amendment TO the constitution and
whether is was nroparlY adopted. The