Evening star., 1926-11-29
LIMIT ON MEDICINAL
WHISKY IS UPHELD
BY SUPREME COURT
Jurists Sharply Divided. Four
Declaring States Deprived
... of Rights.
DECISION MADE ON PLEA
OF DOCTOR FOR FREEDOM
Brandeis, in Opinion, Says Medical
Authority Is Divided on
Efficacy in Sickness.
By the Associated Press.

By the Associated Press.
BY a fve.to-four decision the Su-
preme Court today. upheld the right
Of the Government to limit the guam
tity of whisky which may be pre-
scribed for patients by physicians.
In a case brought by DR.. Samuel w
Lambert Of New York, which has
long been regarded as one Of the most
important tests to which the Volstead
act has been subjected. the majority
Of the court ruled that the restriction
of physicians to one pint Of whisky
each 10 days for a patient was not
an unlawful interference with the
practice Of medicine.
Justice Sutherland delivered the dis
senting opinion and was Joined by
Justices McReynolds, Stone and But
ler. They contended that the courts
opinion had transferred the control
of medicinal practices from the States
to Congress.
The opinion Of the court. handed
down by Justice Brandeis. declared
that the eighteenth amendment. be-
sides prohibiting the manufacture.
sale and transportation of intoXicat-
confers upon Congress by clause 2, in
terms, the power to enforce the pro-
hibition by appropriate legislation.
Says Doctors Differ.
THAT limiting the amount of liq'
uor which may be prescribed for
medicinal purposes IS a provision
adopted to promote the purpose of
the amendment is clear" the decision
SAYS. That the provision Is not arbi.
trary appears from the evidence con-
sidered by Congress, which embodies,
among other things, the lessons OF
half a century of experience in the
several States in dealing with the
liquor.
The opinion asserted that, evidence
disclosed that practicing physicians
differ about the value Of malt, vinous
and spurious liquors for medicinal
purposes. but that the preponderating
opinion Is against their use for such
purposes and that among those who
prescribe them there are some who
are disposed to give prescription where
the real purpose is to divert the liquor
to beverage uses.
"Dr. Lambert asserts that to con.
troll the medical practice in the States
is beyond the power Of the Federal
Government. OF course his belief In
the medicinal value of such liquor
Is not Of controlling significance. 1t
merely places him in what was shown
to Congress to be the minor fraction
of his profession. Besides, there is
no right to practice medicine which
is not subordinate to the belief, of the
States, and also to the power of Con
gress to make laws necessary and
proper for carrying into execution the
eighteenth amendment.
Justice Sutherland asserted that
the majority had deprived the States
of the exclusive power to control
medicinal practices and had trans
ferred it to Congress.
Demands Freedom to Prescribe.
In the practice of his profession DR..
Lambert encountered cases requiring
in his Judgment the use Of whisky as
a medicine, without any effective sub
stitute available. He demanded recog-
milton by the Government Of what he
claimed was his right as a physician
and as his duty toward his patients
to treat them by the untrammeled
exercise of his best skill and scien
tiflcally trained judgment. He de-
manded freedom to use such medi-
cineS and medical treatment as In his
opinion were best calculated to effect
a cure.
He declared it his belief and judg-
ment, based on experience, observa-
ton and the study of medical science,
that the use as a medicine of spiritu-
Gus liquors in certain cases was
necessary for the proper treatment of
patients in order to afford relief
from known ailments. The physical
condition Of the patient. in such cases,
he insisted. the quantity
to be used. He never had and did not
intend to prescribe liquor for beverage
purposes. he stated. but he declared
that the provision of the VOlstead act
under which he was prohibited from
prescribing more than one pint Of
spirituous liquor 10 a patient within
ten days was an unlawful encroach-
ment by Congress upon his right as
physician and therefore void.
In this contention he was supported
by the American Medical Association,
which declared that alcohol had a
therapeutic value, and expressed it's
Of those portions Of the
prohibition act which interfered with
the proper relation between the ply
sician and his patient in prescribing
alcohol incidentally"