Evening star., 1926-12-11

Ii seems as difficult TO get Il unani.
nous agreement "to say when az it
was before the days of prohibition.
At least this conclusion is reached
from the wide variety of opinion eX
pressed concerning the Supreme
Courts decision as to the limit of Il
physicians prescription for alcohol.
The fact that the court WAS divided
is widely commented upon and the
verdict of the commentators is even
| less harmonious. Few seem satisfied
with the pint every 10 days" ruling.
BY the legal profession as we'll as
! by students Of Government" in the
opinion Of the Chicago Daily News,
five to four decisions of the United
States Supreme Court are regarded As
extremely unsatisfactory. The Daily
News admits that "the reasoning OF
the vigorous dissenting opinion is very
persua sive." but it recognizes that
the decision oc the majority is the
authoritative Interpretation of both
the Volstead act and the constitutional
ella uses invoked in the case Tha
paper adds that "one thing is plain
the Supreme Court is affoldinG the
EoiStead act every chance to succeed.
The benefit of every doubt raised be-
fore the court concerning the act has
been given deliberately to that act, OF
to its author. Congress-
The notion that a physician has
constitutional right to prescribe
cargo Of rum for the sick room as
often as he likes according to the
Springfield Republican, lis not toler.
ated by five of the nine justices: and
no wonder it isn't. A rear attack on
the whole prohibition system can be
made through the physician if he is
unrestrained in his use of spirits for
man. Review refers TO the fact brought
out in the opinion that "practicing
physicians differ about the value OF
malt. vinous and SpirituouS liquors,
and concludes that where physicians
differ. and the preponderance of judg-
ment is against the internal use OF al
cohol for medicinal purpose, its Dene-
fetal use is far from proved and. IN
deed. the presumption is strong that
the alcoholic dosing of patients by
physicians is more baneful than heip-
full
y. * :: i;
/ "The picture painted is not that of
meddesome Federal authority arbi-
trarily setting the amount of liquor
physicians may prescribe. but of
majority medical opln,on oeitls
enacted into law and liberal safe
guards allowed besides. says the
Flint Daily journal. while the Des
Moines Tribune makes the incidental
charge that liquor prescriptions, as a
general rule, have proved to be merely
a handy means of doing favor to the
thirsty" The Columbus Ohio State
Journal adds the comment. 1t Is
often argued that the No!stead law
could not validly be liberalized as long
as the eighteenth amendment stands,
but this decision indicates that the
Supreme Court is ready to give Con-
gress a pretty free hand in the mat
ter of liquor legislation"
The end of long fight Is seen by
the New Orleans Tribune, which re.
calls that "the case has been decided
| four times in lower Federal courts.
the clause being upheld twice and
held invalid twice" The Springfield
F., Illinois State Journal remarks that
''when nine men competent to SIT on
! the Nations highest court cannot see
J the same evidence alike, and acquire
from 1t Numerically opposite con.
yictions. is it strange that Juries or
ordinary men sometimes deadlock or
return verdicts at variance with pop
| ular notions OF the case"
THE dissenting opinion contends
that the courts opinion has trans
ferred tke control of medical practice
! from the States. where. under the
, plain inference OF the Constitution. 1t
| belongs. to Congress" states the Co
lumbia Record. with the added opinion
that ''in this belief the four dissenting
tustices have exactly stated our OBJ