The Monmouth inquirer., 1923-05-17
LIFTS LIMIT ON
DOCTORS LIQUOR
Judge Knox Declares Void Vol
stead Maximum Prescription
of a Pint in Ten Days.
ENJ0INs FEDERAL OFFICERS
Not for Congress but for Physicians
to say Amount Necesary-GovA
eminent VIII Fight Ruling
Pending Court Decision.

New Physicians may pre-
scribe any amount of alcoholic liquor
necessary to the proper treatment OF
their patients, under decision hand
ed down by Judge John G. Knox in
the Federal District Court, holding
that Section Z, Title II Of the Volstead
act. is unconstitutional The act pro-
vided that !. doctor might give not
more than one pint of spurious liquor
to the same patient within ten days.
Judge Knox's ruling was made in
suit brought by DR.. Samuel w. Lam
bert, as president Of the Association
for the Protection of Constitutional
Rights, seking an Injunction to re-
strain Federal officials here from en-
forcing the provisions of the prohibit
ton act which affected physicians.
Col. William Hayward. United States
District Attorney, who was one of the
defendants, announced that the gov
ernment would try to stop the opera
ton of the injunction pending appeal
to the Supreme Court.
az have reached the conclusion"
said Judge Knox in his decision, that
the limitations of the Volstead act
and its amendments which make it
lawful to prescribe but one pint of
intoxicating liquor for internal and
- nh
ailment, if it is to be properly treated.
requires the administration of great
er quantity, are void"
DIR. Lambert expressed great pleas
ure that the court had upheld his con-
tention and explained that many Of
the doctors who had taken part in the
concerted action against the restric-
tons were ardent prohibitionists.
These men. he said, felt that the
medical use of alcohol was lot con-
cefvably within the scope of the pro-
hibition laws, and that the same con
fidence shown in rabbis aad priests
in permitting them to get wine for re
ligious use ought to be reposed in
doctors.
In 1<dAlOCllO dClAOu Was UIOuRuB
by Davies. Auerbach & Cornell, and
the Federal agents, who were, besides
Col. Hayward, Edward C. Yellowley,
former acting director here, and Da-
vid H. Blair, Commissioner of Inter-
nal Revenue, were defended by John
Holley Clark, Col. Hayward's assist
ant. The bill of complaint was filed
several months ago and came up for
decision on the Governments motion
to dismiss.
In his complaint DR.. Lambest set
forth number of basic allegations,
stating that he was practicing physi-
clan and that an essential part of his
professional rights and duty towards
his patients was the use of such medi-
cines as, in his opinion, were best cal
culated to promote their health and
cure their ailments 1t expressed DR..
Lambert's bellies that liquor is neces-
sary in the treatment of certain all
ments and is necessary in larger guam
titles than allowed by the Volstead
act. Allegations were included charg-
ing that the defendants had publicly
threatened to bring legal proceedings
against DR.. Lambert if he should pre-
scribe more than one pint in ten days
to one person.
Judge Knox said that prescriptive
regulation in the Volstead act did not
purport to have been based on any
finding that the quantity established
was reasonable and proper. If this
had been SO, he sard, he should have
been inclined to dismiss the com
plant, sit being my impression that
within reasonable limits the quantity
to be prescribed may be regulated by
Congress.
Coming right on top of the repeal
of the Mullan-Gage State Liquor En-
forcement law at Albany, the decision
OF Judge Knox was hailed with joy by
the anti-prohibitionists Legal ex-
perts in the wet" ranks declared that
the decision, if upheld in the United
States Supreme Court, would have far
reaching effects.