Show 6 o fill v u L J lJ lJ u LI L I F I 1 J 1 I j j I Ui S S. S I I Court Rules Rules' Against Wets I IW Dec 15 The Tle The wartime prohibition act was W WASHINGTON held constitutional today by the supreme supreme court F Federal d foos Blum Co to compel infernal internal revenue officials to permit foos Blum Co to compel internal revenue revenue officials official to permit the withdrawal from bond of whisky for beverage purposes were affirmed by the tile court In deciding the question the supreme court also atso dissolved injunctions injunctions injunctions in- in in in- junctions restraining revenue officers from interfering with the removal from bond of about gallons of whisky valued value at approximately held Jay by Kentucky the Distillers and Warehouse company of Louisville Ky WAR NOT ENDED TIre The sl sIgning of th the j abrogate the war powers of congress Associate Brandeis said s-id In reading the decision of the court I Justice Brandeis said the government government government govern govern- ment did not appropriate the liquor by stopping its domestic sale as the way was left open for exporting it WAR POWERS Justice Brandeis also called attention attention attention atten atten- tion to the continued control of ot the railroads and resumption of or powers bythe bythe by the government relative to coal and sugar war wal acts to show that the government government government gov gov- continued to exercise various war powers despite the signing of the I armistice The constitutional prohibition I amendment is binding on the federal government as well as the states and supercedes supersedes the state laws the court I declared DECISION UNANIMOUS The judgment of the court In the I Kentucky cases was unanimous Justice Brandeis said there was no basis for the contention that President Wilsons Wilson's statement in his message vetoing vetoing vetoing ve ve- I i the prohibition enforcement act that the war had come to an end wasI was wasa a proclamation announcing the termination termination ter termination ter- ter of or the war I BEER IGNORED In rendering its opinion the court I confined itself entirely entirety to the wartime prohibition act and took no action on the so called beer cases which attacked the constitutionality of ot the prohibition enforcement act ENFORCEMENT LAW I The court will render opinions again next Monday at which time I II the beer cases are expected to be decided decided decided de de- I after atter which the court will recess re recess recess re- re cess until January 5 G. The prohibition constitutional amendment will become effective January 16 Upon the courts court's decision on on the prohibition enforcement law which Is expected early in January will depend de depend depend de- de pend whether the federal government has at hand any legal means for tor I making the amendment effective constitutionality con con- onI on- on o of wartime prohibition I however the drys drs are confident will keep the country countr dry until the amendment amendment amendment amend amend- ment is carried into effect by law of ot its own I THE DECISION Justice Brandeis' Brandeis decision In part c follows The war power of ot the United States I Is subject to applicable constitutional limitations but the fifth amendment Imposed In this respect no greater limitation lim upon the national power than does the fourteenth amendment upon state power If the nature and conditions of ot a restriction upon the use or disposition of property is such sueh that a state could under the police pollee power impose it consistently con cot with the fourteenth amendment amendment amends amend amend- s ment without making compensation then the United States may mar for a permitted perI permitted per per- I purpose impose a like restriction restriction restriction tion consistently with the fifth amendment amendment amendment amend amend- ment without making compensation for prohibition of the liquor traffic Is conceded to be an appropriate means o of increasing our war efficiency NO CONFISCATION There Then was no appropriation of ot the liquor for public purposes The war war- wartime time lime prohibition act fixed a period of ot seven lIeven months and nine days from It its ita passage during which liquors could be disposer disposed of free from any restriction Imposed by the federal government go Thereafter until the end of the war and tho the termination of ot mob mobilization ill zat i on it permits permit an unrestricted sale for export and ancL within the tho United States sales for other than beverage purposes The un- un gp 1 fn ted r upon 1 position n of liquors imposed b by this act actis actis actis is of ot a nature far tar less severe than the thel restrictions r upon the use of property acquired before tho the enactment of the prohibitory act I REASONABLE TIME We Ye cannot say say- sa that seven months and nine days das was not a reasonable time within which to dispose of ot all liquors In bonded warehouses on November November November No No- vember 21 1918 1915 The Tho amount then in storage was materially less than was usually carried because no such liquor could be lawfully made in America under the Lever f food food lod and fuel tuel control act after September 9 1917 And if It as is suggested us the liquors remaining in bond November 21 1918 were not yet sufficiently ripened or aged to permit permit per per- mit them to be advantageously disposed disposed dis dis- posed of or within the limited period of ot seven months and nine days thereafter the resulting Inconvenience to the owner owner own own- er attributable to the inherent qualities ties of ot the property Itself cannot be regarded as a taking of ot property in the constitutional sense WAR EMERGENCY Did the act become void by the tho passing of ot the war emergency before the commencement of ot these suits Itis Itis It Itis is conceded that the mere cessation of or hostilities under the armistice did not abridge or suspend the power of congress congress congress con con- gress to resort to prohibition of ot the toe liquor traffic as a means meaDS of ot increasing our war efficiency that the support and care of ot the army and navy during mobilization was within the war emergency emergency emergency emer emer- gency and that hence the act was valid when passed The contention is that between the date of ot its enactment and the commencement commencement commencement com com- of these suits it had become evident that hostilities would not be resumed that demobilization had been effected that thereby the war emergency emergency emergency emer emer- gency was removed and that when the emergency ceased th became void EMERGENCY MEASURES When to establish the emergency has passed statements and acts of ot the president and of ot other executive I officers are adduced some of ot them I I antedating the enactment of the statute statute statute stat stat- ute here hero In question But we have hae also the fact that since these i were made and these acts were don congress on October 28 1919 passed over the presidents president's veto the national prohibition act that the tho senate on November ember 19 1919 refused refused re refused re- re I fused to ratify the treaty o of peace with Germany German that under the provisions of ot the Lever act the president resumed on October 30 the control of the fue supply that h he Is still operating 01 op crating the railroads of which control had been taken taleen as a war measure andI and I that on November ember 18 1919 he vetoed I Senate Bill 6 11 because it diminished I that control that pursuant to the act I I o of March 4 4 1919 he continues to control control control con con- by means of the food tood administration tion grain corporation the supply of ot grain and wheat heat flour that through I the United States l Board Inc he still regulates the tho price of sugar that In his message to congress on December 2 2 1919 he urgently commended commended com coin emended mended the further extension for Cor six months of ot the powers of the food tood administration administration ad- ad ministration that as commander in chief he till still keeps keep a part of ot the arm army In enemy nemy occupied territory and another another another an an- other part in Siberia and that he has retrained refrained from issuing the proclamation I I tion declaring the d determination of demobilization de demobilization de- de mobilization for which this act pro pro- I de-I I vides lL THE COURTS COURT'S RIGHT No principle of ot of our con constitutional law is more firmly established than I Continued on page 3 3 |