and in and by Section 3 of Title II of said Act it is provided that "no person shall on or after the date when the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States goes into effect manufacture, sell, barter, transport, import, export, deliver, furnish or possess any intoxicating liquors within the State of Rhode Island, such alleged offenses and crimes being punishable by heavy fines, imprisonments and forfeitures, as set forth in other portions of Title II of said Act; and complainant is advised and therefore avers that such portion of said Volstead Act as relates and applies to the enforcement of the so-called Eighteenth Amendment is unconstitutional and void insofar as the same relates to the manufacture, sale, barter, transport, delivery, furnishing or possession of any intoxicating liquor within the State of Rhode Island, or the making of any of said acts within the State of Rhode Island a crime against the United States, said acts within the State of Rhode Island being lawful and authorized under the constitution and laws of the State of Rhode Island.

XIII. And complainant further shows and alleges that the State of Rhode Island in the exercise of its inherent and exclusive right to manage and control its internal affairs as a separate community and independent State, and to pursue such legislative policy as will provide adequate revenue by developing the resources and encouraging the industries within its territorial limits, has permitted and caused to be legally established within the State extensive and numerous manufactories for the production of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, and that many thousands of dollars are invested therein and in the business of retailing the products thereof, and said manufactories and business have greatly added to the value of the ratable property within the State; that there are within the State at the present time large quantities of intoxicating liquors that were manufactured for beverage purposes both prior and subsequent to the alleged ratification of the so-called Eighteenth Amendment, and said liquors are of great value as ratable property, incapable of estimation, and hitherto have been and now are a considerable source of revenue to complainant; and that should the aforesaid provisions of the Volstead Act be enforced within the State of Rhode Island, the extensive business of manufacturing and selling intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes within the State of Rhode Island will be entirely destroyed and the value of the property especially adapted for use in said business will be greatly depreciated, and the intoxicating liquors now within the State, manufactured for beverage purposes both prior and subsequent to the alleged ratification of the so-called Eighteenth Amendment, will become of no value, whereby the revenue to the State from all said property, based upon the valuation thereof, will be seriously impaired, to the great and irreparable injury of complainant.

XIV. And complainant further shows and alleges that under Chapter 123, of the General Laws of Rhode Island, 1909, as amended by Chapter 1740, of the Public Laws of 1919, the material portions of which are hereunto annexed and marked Exhibit I, reference thereto being hereby

prayed, the State of Rhode Island, through its municipal subdivisions, grants licenses for the manufacture and sale of non-intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, said non-intoxicating liquors including "all distilled or rectified spirits, wines, fermented and malt liquors, which contain one per centum and not more than four per centum by weight of alcohol," said non-intoxicating liquors being intoxicating liquors within the intent and meaning of said Volstead Act; and that the State of Rhode Island and its municipal subdivisions have for many years derived and now derive extensive revenue from the fees for said licenses, said revenue amounting to the following sums:

That complainant has received and now receives one-fourth of all the revenue from all licenses issued in the State of Rhode Island for the manufacture and sale of intoxicating or non-intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, as aforesaid, and that should the aforesaid pro

visions of the Volstead Act be enforced within the State of Rhole Island all said revenues to the State of Rhode Island and to its municipal subdivisions will be entirely lost, to the great and irreparable injury of complainant.

XV. And complainant further shows and alleges that the so-called Volstead Act provides that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Attorney General of the United States, their assistants, subordinates, agents and servants are authorized and directed to enforce such portion of said Act as relates and applies to the enforcement of the so-called Eighteenth Amendment, from and after the date when said so-called Eighteenth Amendment is alleged to go into effect, to wit, on or about the 16th day of January, 1920; and although the so-called Eighteenth Amendment is unconstitutional and void, and although such portion of the so-called Volstead Act as relates and applies to the enforcement of the so-called Eighteenth Amendment is unconstitutional and void, it is nevertheless the purpose, intent and threat of said Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Attorney General of the United States, their assistants, subordinates, agents and servants to enforce the fines, imprisonments and forfeitures provided in said Volstead Act, as aforesaid, against the people of the State of Rhode Island, on the ground that the manufacture, sale, barter, transport, delivery, furnishing or pos

session of intoxicating liquor within the State of Rhode Island is contrary to law and a crime against the United States, although all said acts within the State of Rhode Island are lawful and authorized under the constitution and laws of said State; and further, that the enforcement of the so-called Eighteenth Amendment and of the provisions of the so-called Volstead Act, as aforesaid, as proposed, intended and threatened by the said Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Attorney General of the United States, their assistants, subordinates, agents and servants, will deprive the people of the State of Rhode Island of that liberty of self-government in the management and control of their domestic affairs as a community, which it was the very purpose of the Constitution of the United States to secure to them, and will also deprive them in their sovereign capacity of that power of police and economy in the regulation of the civil institutions of said State, adapted for the internal government thereof, which the people of said State have possessed, exercised and enjoyed for nearly three centuries, a power never delegated to the United States, but expressly reserved to the people of Rhode Island by the Constitution of the United States; all of which is to the irreparable injury and damage of the people of the State of Rhode Island, and of this complainant.

Forasmuch therefore as complainant is without remedy at law and its only protection in the premises must arise from the equitable jurisdiction of this Court, wherein is vested the duty and the power to interpret and enforce the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, and to the end that it may obtain the relief to which it is by right in equity entitled,

WHEREFORE, complainant respectfully prays this Honorable Court to grant unto it a writ of subpoena to be directed to the said A. Mitchell Palmer, Attorney General of the United States, and to the said Daniel C. Roper, United States Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the defendants herein named, demanding and requiring them to appear and answer hereto, but not under oath, the answer under oath being hereby expressly waived; and that the so-called Eighteenth Amendment be declared unconstitutional, usurpatory and void; and that such portion of said Volstead Act as applies or relates to the enforcement of the so-called Eighteenth Amendment, enacted by Congress under the assumed authority of said so-called Eighteenth amendment, be declared unconstitutional and void; and that said defendants, their assistants, subordinates, agents and servants, and each and every of them, be enjoined and restrained from in any manner enforcing, or attempting to enforce, or causing to be enforced, the aforesaid provisions of the Volstead Act within the territory of the State of Rhode Island, or from in any manner interfering with the manufacture, sale, barter, transport, delivery, furnishing or possession of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes within the State of Rhode Island, for or on account of any alleged violation of the aforesaid provisions of the Volstead Act, on the ground or claim that any such manufacture, sale, barter, transport, delivery, furnishing or pos

session of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes within the State of Rhode Island is contrary to law; and that complainant may have such other and further relief as to this Court may seem just and equitable in the premises.

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND,
by HERBERT A. RICE,
Attorney General.

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND,
PROVIDENCE, Sc.

I, Herbert A. Rice, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Attorney General of the State of Rhode Island; that I have read the foregoing bill of complaint and know the contents thereof; that so far as the same are allegations of fact they are true of my own knowledge, and so far as they are allegations upon advice, information and belief, I believe them to be true.

(Signed) HERBERT A. RICE.

Subscribed and sworn to in the City of Providence, in said County and State, this day of December, 1919.

(SEAL)

[Annexed were the exhibits.]

(Signed) J. FRED PARKER,

Secretary of State.

FORM III.-BILL FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AND COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

[259 Fed. 525; 251 U. S. 264.]

District Court of the United States, Southern District of New York. JACOB RUPPERT, a corporation,

against

Complainant,

FRANCIS G. CAFFEY, United States At

torney for the Southern District of In Equity.

New York, and RICHARD J. MCELLI

GOTT, Acting and Deputy Collector of

Internal Revenue of the Third District of New York,

Defendants.

To the Honorable the Judges of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York sitting in Equity:

The complainant, Jacob Ruppert, a corporation, brings this, its bill of complaint, against the above-named defendants, and respectively shows unto this Honorable Court as follows:

I. The complainant, Jacob Ruppert, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, and its principal

place of business is located in the city and county of New York in said State. All of its officers, directors and stockholders are citizens of the United States by birth. The defendant, Francis G. Caffey, is the duly appointed and acting United States Attorney in and for the Southern District of New York, and the defendant, Richard J. MeElligott, is the Acting and Deputy Collector of Internal Revenue in and for the Third District of New York.

II. This is a suit of a civil nature arising under the Constitution of the United States. The matter in controversy exceeds the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000) in value, exclusive of interest and costs. The complainant is advised by its counsel and therefore avers that subdivision "Fourth" of section 1 of the act of Congress of November 21, 1918, providing for so-called war prohibition, and title I of the act of Congress of October 28, 1919, duly called and known as the "National Prohibition Act," are unconstitutional and void because beyond the powers vested in the Congress, in that they seek to provide for and enforce national prohibition of malt liquors during the period which will elapse before the Eighteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States will become effective for any purpose whatever, as therein expressly provided, and thereby deprive the complainant of its liberty and property without due process of law and without just compensation, and in that, therefore, violate both the Fifth and Tenth Articles of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

III. The complainant was incorporated in 1910 as a manufacturing corporation for the purpose of carrying on and conducting the business of manufacturing and brewing lager beer and other malt liquors and of doing such other business as might be necessary, incidental, or convenient for the operation of the business of such manufacture and the sale of its products. It succeeded to the extensive and valuable business of and the property theretofore used therein by one Jacob Ruppert and the good-will established by him from about the year 1867, at which time he entered upon said business of brewing, manufacturing, producing and selling malt liquors, until about 1910, when he transferred the said business and property to the complainant corporation, which has ever since owned, managed, carried on and conducted said business. The complainant has a capital stock of the par value of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), divided into one thousand (1,000) shares of the par value of one hundred dollars ($100), each, all of which stock has been duly issued for full value and is now outstanding. IV. The complainant further alleges as follows:

(1) That, in addition to other valuable real estate, it owns three plots of real estate comprising sixty-five (65) lots in the City of New York which are used by it solely for the purpose of its aforesaid brewery business, and that these plots of real estate have an aggregate assessed valuation of over one million, eight hundred and forty thousand dollars ($1,840,000).