Watauga Democrat. [volume] (Boone, Watauga County, N.C.) 1888-current, 1923-05-17
PROVISION OF THE DRY LAW is
DECLARED VOID


physician to prescribe for his patients
the provisions of the Volstead act
and its amendments prohibiting the
prescribing of more than a pint of
spirituous liquor every 10 days.
By implication, he indicated his
belief that provision of the Harri-
son anti-narcotic act, prohibiting ply
sicians from prescribing increaed
doses of drugs to addicts under treat
ment, also was unconstitutional for
the same reason. Counsel for DR..
Ernest S. Bishop, recently indicted
for violation of the drug prescribing
limitation, announced they would
apply for dismissal of the indictment.
The decision in the liquor pres
cription case was first blood for the
Association for the Protestation of
Constitutional Rights, and organiza-
tion of 100 prominent physicians,
who brought the suit through their
president, DR.. Samuel W. Lambert,
dean emeritus of the college of ply
sicians at Columbia university. AS
sistant United States Attorney Clark
announced, however, tina tthe case
would be rushed to the. United States
supreme court for a final decision,
and he would seek stay of Judge
Knox's decision in the meantime.
DR.. Lambert filed his action in
November, 1922, claiming in effect
that Congress was usurping the func-
tions of the physician in limiting the
amount of liquor that might be pres
cribed to any one patient and asking
that the state prohibition director,
the internal revenue department and
the United States attorneys office be
restrained from molesting him in his
avowed determination to ignore the
provision, which he declared illegal.
Judge Knox read 5000 WORD de-
cision upholding his contention. of
unconstitutionality and granting the
injunction, I. 914- y, {,
Although, he said, the question of
whether liquor is valuable thera-
peutic agent is so highly controver-
.sial that questionable directed to
10000 physicians had resulted in a
81 to 49 vote in favor of the use of
liquor in certain cases, Congress it
self, sin the very legislation under
attack" had recognized it as having
a legitimate medical use.
"The difficulty" he continued, sis
that having done so, Congress, with
out reference to the quantity of Ii
quor actually required for the
proper treatment of a particular all
men, and irrespective of the good
faith, judgment an dskill of the
physician in attendance, proceeds to
limit the amount to be prescribed to
not more than a pint within pc
riod of 10 days.
"The 18th amendment was de-
signed to bring about the prohibi-
tion of Intoxicating liquor for be-
verage purposes, and was not, |
think, intended to put an end to the
use of liquor for purposes regarded
by those who proposed the amend
ment, and by many of the states
that ratified it, as justifable and
proper"
Such uses, he said, included its
use for sacramental purposes, for
medical purposes and for industrial
purposes, pointing out that no limit
had been placed on the amount that
might be used for sacremental pur-
poses.
"Instead Of manifesting the same
solicitude for the physical wellbeing
of person suffering from disease
that it evinced for the spiritual COM
fort and welfare fmembers of GER
tain religious sects," he continued
Congress restricted in the manner
complained of the medicinal use OF
Intoxicating liquors.
eff, as the complaint alleges, the
administration to a patient of more
than the statutory quantity Of liquor
is necessary for his relief from g
certain known ailment, the inability
of such patient to have his legitimate
needs supplied means that he is sub
10 jected to a prohibition that certainly
is not within the terms of the 18th
amendment, and which it easily ma!
be imagined, might subject him tt
serious consequences, if not deatl
itself. While the exercise of regu
latory power in the interest of th'
public at large frequently bring
about individual hardship, it is to b,
recalled that one of the chief object
is to preserve, and is not to jeopra
disc and destroy the health of it's citi
zens. For this reason feel that per