| OCR Text |
Show Ing to be enforced against the plaintiffs, Uietr Officers, agents, servants, employees and customers any or the penalties, pains, seizures or forfeitures of tlie wartime prohibition act.. District Attorney Hensley is restrained from arresting or prosecuting tlie plaintiffs plain-tiffs or their agents or customers for their failure to ariix revenue slumps, provided the failure is due to the collector s refusal re-fusal to Issue the. stamps. The defendants are likewise enjoined from arresting or prosecuting the plaintiffs plain-tiffs or their employees, agents or customers cus-tomers and from seizing or attempting to seize or In any way interfering with the property, business or affairs of the plaintiffs plain-tiffs or their customers on account of alleged al-leged violation of the act. Judge Pollack's decision waB In stills brought by two brewing associations and live Independent St. Louis breweries to restrain the United States district attor-nev attor-nev and the collector of internal revenue from enforcing the wartime prohibition act. Theso suits were consolidated by agreement. The judge asked if the state of Missouri had ever questioned in court Iho right ot congress to pass the wartime prohibition law. When told that no such action had been taken, he said: States Should Awaken. "It is time for the states to wako up, or congress may usurp all their privileges." privi-leges." One of tlie points made by the Judge In summing up his views on the prohibition enforcement act is that It violates its pledges made when constitutional prohibition prohi-bition was submitted to the states for ratification. This pledge was that the enforcement en-forcement of nation-wide prohibition by the federal government would not start until one year after the eighteenth amendment amend-ment to the national constitution was ratified. Only the existence of the actual war emergency would justify the act of congress con-gress in passing the enforcement act of October 2S, the decision stated. In the opinion of the court, no such emergency existed, and "the prohibition of beverages containing not more than 2.73 per cent alcohol hears no relation to the conduct of anv war between the 1'nlted States and any nation on earth or to the disbanding of any troops." 1MB Beverage of 2.75 Alcoholic Alco-holic Content Held to 3e Nonintoxicating by Court in St. Louis. Injunction Against Enforcement En-forcement Issued; Supreme Su-preme Court Concludes Arguments on War Act. 8 ST. LOUIS, Nov. 21. On the ground 8hat beer of 2.7,"i per cent alcoholic Content is not intoxicating, Judge John K. Pollack, of the United States district dis-trict court hero, today handed down a decision granting a temporary injunction injunc-tion to restrain tlio United States district dis-trict attorney and the collector of in-3crual in-3crual revenue from interfering with She manufacture and sale of this beer 3y St. Louis brewers. 1, Judge Pollack 's decision, while it Jtonfined itself to ruling on the subject of 2.75 per cent alcoholic beer, calls giitcnticin to the fact that war was being be-ing waged at the time the constitutional constitu-tional prohibition amendment was sub-Snittod sub-Snittod by congress to the state legislatures legis-latures and that congress at that time id not attempt to arrogate to itself She passage of a prohibition act as a JB-ar measure. The state legislatures voted on ratification, the decision says, 'and they did so on the express promise sjpf congress that after the necessary dumber of states had ratified the .amendment a year would be permitted So elapse before it should be enforced ?by the government. Congress therein recognized the rights of the states, Sven in war times, the decision says, jjnd it has not now the right to in-ffrinfe in-ffrinfe on state powers with reference go prohibition enforcement. )ECLARES CONGRESS IN CONFLICT WITH STATES. In passing the enforcement act, the tflecision says, congress attempted to rc-xereise rc-xereise war powers when the war Emergency no longer existed and tried to justify by one section of the constitution consti-tution an act which was forbidden by another section. Tho decision further points out that, although the power of congress eomos primarily from the states, the congress, in this instance, lias passed a law which ' does not pretend to concur with the state laws of Missouri, but is in direct conflict with it.'' The decision further points out that t he laws of M issouri do not prohibit tiha manufacture of the brewers' product prod-uct and that t he brewers h:ivc paid large sums into tho state treasury from the proceeds of a. business which was recognized by the state as legal. The decision cites tho words of President Pres-ident Wilson in his veto messago ou the prohibition enforcement act as proof that to all practical intent tlie war was over when the act passed over the president's veto. TAKES AWAY POLICE POWERS OF STATES. The decision states thai this act of congress took away the police powers of the states and violated the eighteenth eigh-teenth amendment to the constitution, which became a part of the organic law of the land at the moment of its ratification. The power and effect of the amendment, the decision said, was in full force from the time of its ratification rat-ification despite the fact that so fat-as fat-as the United States government was concerned it was not to be enforced until one vear thereafter. The injunction was made effective at once and -will remain in force temporarily tem-porarily until a ruling on the entire question of the validity of tlie wartime prohibition act is handed down. The decision does not deal with whisky or any liquors' or beverages of greater alcoholic content than 2.75 per cent, and covers only the specific grounds on which the validity of tho law was attacked in the injunction suits brought by the breweries, brew-eries, which sought to establish their right to make and sell. 2.75 per cent beer. Judge Pollack did not rulo on the constitutionality con-stitutionality of either the wartime prohibition prohi-bition law or the Volstead enforcement act. The plea made by the brewers in the suits for an injunction was that 2.75 per cent alcohol lu beer was not intoxicating, and asked that the defendants be enjoined from enforcing the law as it affected 2.75 per cent alcoholic beer. BEER LID LIFTED BY COURT DECREE. In effect. Judge Pollack sanctioned the lifting of the lid on beer in St. Louis. In the decision Judge Pollack granted a temporary restraining order enjoining United States District Attorney Hensley and Collector of Internal Revenue Moore from enforcing the provisions of the Volstead Vol-stead wartime prohibition act. The district dis-trict attorney is restrained from prosecuting prosecu-ting alleged violators of the measure and the internal revenue collector Is enjoined from refusing to issue revenue stamps for beer containing one-half of 1 per cent or more of alcohol. Judge Tollack enjoins Collector Moore from refusing to issue revenue stamps in respect to beer or malt liquor containing one-half of 1 per cent or more of alcohol, provided the taxes are tendered and paid. The collector Is also enjoined from refusing re-fusing to license the plaintiffs as brewers, even though the beer manufactured contains con-tains more than one-half of 1 per cent alcohol, or from revoking such license because of violations of tho provisions ot the law. District Attorney Hensley and Collector Moore, whom the court describes as the defendants; their agents, servants and employees em-ployees are restrained from In any manner enforcing or attempting to enrorce or caui- |
