Evening star., 1933-03-23
|bEER LAW ATTACK
AWAITED BY LEAGUE
Attorney Dunford Of 0rgani.
~zation Says Requisite Cir.
cumstances Are Needed.

By the Associated Press.
\Edward B. Dunford, attorney for the
Anti-Saloon League Of America. said
yesterday IAN attack upon the (beer)
law will certainly be made when the
requisite circumstances arise" -
He indicated that the Anti-Saloon
League would sponsor no attempt to OBJ
tain an injunction to restrain issuance
Of licenses for sale Of beer, but would
await the actual beginning Of distribu-
ton April 7.
Meanwhile, however. DR.. Clarence
True Wilson Of the Methodist Episcopal
Board OF Temperance and Public
Morals has said court proceedings would
be filed to obtain an injunction. Wilson
was not in the city yesterday and other
dry leaders said 1t was unknown yet
where or in what shape this action
would be begun.
Attorneys said an injunction might
be sought by a taxpayer to restrain the
Commissioner Of Industrial Alcohol
from issuing licenses or individual ac-
tions might be taken in Federal courts
against the district administrators Of
the licenses.
Six Points Of Attack.
Dunford, in a letter to the various
State superintendentS Of the league,
listed six points under which he said the
constitutionality of the law could be at
tackled after sale is begun. They are
as follows:
Il. The attorney general or other law
ton for an injunction to restrain a
common carrier or others from trans
porting such beer through the State on
the ground that 1t Is a transportation Of
intoxicating liquors prohibited by the
eighteenth amendment.
%. Any wildcat brewer indicted for
manufacturing 80 per cent beer without
a permit may defend on the ground that
he has violated no law, since the act ex-
pressly repeals the criminal penalties
for the manufacture and sale Of beer
containing not more than 80 per cent
Of alcohol by weight and that the pro-
visions requiring that he shall obtain a
permit from the Government before en-
gaging In such manufacture Is uncon-
stitutional on the ground that such law
undertakes to positively authorize the
manufacture and sale of an intoxicating
beer in violation Of the eighteenth
amendment.
IS. In any one of the few States
where the State definition prohibits
merely Intoxicating beer. any State
prosecuting oflcer may cause the arrest
OF brewer authorized to manufacture
beer under a Federal permit on the
ground that the product is intoxicating,
and where the brewer pleads the Fed
eral permit as justification, the issue of
the constitutionality Of the Federal law
would be presented.
-. Since the act provides that the
beer may be manufactured only In ac-
cordance with permit issued under
the national prohibition act. which
grants privilege, any soft drink manu-
facturer whose business is detrimentally
affected by competition from the sale
of beer manufactured by a permitee may
file suit to compel the commissioner
Of prohibition to revoke such permit or
to enjoin the commissioner from issuing
permits to breweries to manufacture
beer on the ground that the conferring
of such a privilege Is violative Of the
eighteenth amendment, denies to him
the equal protection Of the law and de-
prives him Of his property without due
process, alleging that such beer is in
toxicating and that its sale detriment-
ally affects his business
IS. Should it develop that public in
toxication results from the sale of such
beer. any prosecuting oficer. State or
national, may institute an action In a
court Of equity for the abatement of the
brewery. saloon, grocery, speakeasy or
other place as q public nuisance where
intoxicating liquors are sold In violation
of the policy defined by the eighteenth
amendment to the Constitution of the
United States.
Is. Any person purchasing such beer
may refuse payment Of the purchase
price and when sued in court defend on
the ground that the transaction in
volved the sale Of intoxicating beer in
violation Of the public policy represented
by the eighteenth amendment and,
therefore. the courts will not give it
effect"