it seemed to him entirely safe then to remove the ban upon the manufacture and sale of wines and beers, and that thereafter and on October 27, 1919, in a Message to the Congress, of which a copy is hereto annexed as Exhibit V, the President proclaimed that the army and navy had been demobilized and that the objects of the prohibition embodied in said act of Congress of November 21, 1918, arising out of the emergencies of the war had been satisfied in such demobilization. The complainant further alleges that since November 11, 1918, hostilities between the United States and the enemy have in fact ceased, and the enemy by virtue of its compliance with the terms and conditions of said Armistice and the pending Treaty of Peace, has been shorn of substantially all its military power and physically and materially incapacitated from renewing hostilities; that both Germany and Austria have been practically disarmed; that the greater part of the German navy has been surrendered and sunk; that more than three months prior to October 28, 1919, commercial relations had been authorized and resumed between the people of the United States and the peoples of Germany and Austria and now continue; that prior to said date the demobilization of the army and navy of the United States had been completed and such forces reduced to the peacetime establishment; that prior to said date all the war activities of the United States had ceased, and most of the boards, bodies and other governmental instrumentalities appointed or created to carry on such war activities and to meet the emergencies of war had been disbanded or discharged or had ceased to function; and that prior to said date most of the executive and administrative regulations and restrictions imposed upon the people of the United States growing out of the war had been cancelled or removed and substantially all of the excess or surplus war materials and food supplies had been disposed of and substantially all of its excess or surplus war servants, both civil and military, had been discharged.

X. The complainant further alleges that if it should hereafter comply with the terms and provisions of the portions of said acts of Congress, Exhibits I and II, by discontinuing the manufacture and sale of nonintoxicating beer as aforesaid, containing not to exceed 2.75 per cent. of alcohol by weight, or if the terms and provisions thereof should be enforced against it so as to prevent such manufacture and sale, its valuable business and good-will would be destroyed, all profit there from would be rendered impossible, the value of its property as a going concern would be destroyed and dissipated, its staff of skilled employees would be disorganized, and the value of its intricate and costly plant and physical assets would be at once depreciated to its junk or salvage value only, and that the great and irreparable injury and damage to the complainant and its stockholders caused thereby would be incapable of being admeasured and adjudicated in an action at law, and it further alleges that if its property used in connection with its business is seized or interfered with, or if its officers, employees, or customers are arrested or prosecuted, or otherwise harassed by legal proceedings, for alleged

violations of said portions of said acts of Congress, Exhibits I and II, such seizures, interference, arrests, prosecutions, or other proceedings would immediately involve it in a multiplicity of suits and legal proceedings and would long before any judgment or decision could be had in such suits and proceedings compel it to cease the conduct of its business, to its great damage and irreparable injury.

The complainant further alleges that beer containing less than onehalf of one per cent. of alcohol by volume cannot be successfully or profitably substituted by it in its business for the war beer it is now manufacturing and selling; that the great majority of its customers would not purchase such beer at all, and that the others would purchase it only in quantities much smaller than their present and ordinary purchases of said war beer; that the market for beer with an alcoholic content of less than one-half of one per cent. by volume is and will be much smaller than the present market for said war beer; and that the complainant cannot convert its present stock of said war beer into beer containing less than one-half of one per cent. of alcohol by volume without being compelled to lose the largest part of the profit which the sale thereof as war beer would earn for the complainant.

XI. The complainant alleges that beer or malt liquor containing only one-half of one per cent. of alcohol by volume is not and cannot under any conditions produce intoxication, and that a determination to the contrary by the Congress or any other officer or official body of the Government of the United States is and will be without any basis in fact and unreasonable and arbitrary.

The complainant further alleges that the same amount and kind of materials are used and required to produce and manufacture beer or other malt liquor containing but one-half of one per cent. of alcohol by volume, as are used and required to produce and manufacture an equal quantity of beer or other malt liquor containing two and threequarters per cent. (2.75 p. c.) of alcohol by weight.

XII. The complainant is informed and believes and therefore alleges on information and belief that there are 1250 establishments in the United States brewing malt liquors containing more than one-half of one per cent. of alcohol by volume; that they employ 75,404 persons; that their actual capital investment equals $792,914,000; that their annual pay-rolls total $80,246,000; that the aggregate value of their product is $442,149,000 annually; that on a total barrelage of 50,287,121, they paid to the United States taxes in the year ended June 30, 1918, amounting to $126,285,857, and that it is estimated that at the present rate of $6 per barrel the total amount of their taxes payable to the United States for the year 1919 will be over $301,722,000; that closely related to said business of brewing such malt liquors are industries such as the malt, hop-growing, glass-blowing and cooperage industries, which in large part, if not in whole, are closely related to and largely dependent thereon, and that the total capital invested in said brewing and depend

ent industries to the extent to which they are dependent thereon, is in excess of one billion dollars.

XIII. The complainant further alleges that, unless restrained by this Honorable Court, the said defendants intend to and will enforce against complainant, its officers, agents, servants, employees and customers, the various pains, penalties, seizures and forfeitures provided for in said act of Congress of November 21, 1918, and said National Prohibition Act and other laws made applicable thereby, and intend to and will commence and prosecute the various prosecutions, proceedings and suits in said acts of Congress purported to be authorized or required; and that such action on the part of the defendants or either of them, will necessarily and inevitably involve the complainant, its officers, agents, servants, employees and customers in a multiplicity of legal proceedings, and involve and threaten it with the arrest and dispersion of its staff of skilled and trained employees or coerce them into quitting its employ in order to avoid prosecution, possible punishment, and other harassment under color of legal proceedings, and threaten and involve the destruction of its business, the seizure of its property, the loss of its customers and the destruction of its good-will and property, all to the irreparable damage of the complainant and its stockholders, and that all and singular the damages resulting from such acts and proceedings would be incapable of admeasurement and adjudication at law.

XIV. The complainant is further informed and verily believes and therefore alleges on information and belief that the defendants herein are not, either jointly or severally, possessed of sufficient means to satisfy a judgment against them for the large and substantial damages which would accrue to complainant if this Honorable Court does not restrain and enjoin said defendants and each of them, as hereinafter prayed, from interfering with complainant's business and property as aforesaid. FORAS MUCH, therefore, as your complainant is without remedy in the premises except in a court of equity, and to the end that it may obtain from this Honorable Court the relief to which it is by right and equity entitled, it respectfully prays that the above defendants, and each of them, be directed full, true and perfect answer to make to this bill of complaint, but not under oath, the answer under oath of each of them being hereby expressly waived, and that the said defendants and each of them, their agents, servants, employees and subordinates, and each and every of them, be enjoined and restrained from in any manner enforcing or attempting to enforce or causing to be enforced, against complainant, its officers, agents, servants, employees and customers, or any of them, any of the pains, penalties, seizures and forfeitures provided in and by said portions of said acts of Congress, Exhibits I and II hereto, and other applicable laws, and from arresting or prosecuting, or causing to be arrested or prosecuted, the complainant, its officers, agents, servants, employees and customers, or any of them, for or on account of any alleged violation by them, or any of them, of the terms and provisions of said portions of said acts of Congress, Exhibits I and II, if such violation consist solely of the manufacture or sale of non-intoxicating beer, and

from in any manner or to any extent seizing, attempting or causing to be seized, or otherwise interfering with the property, business and affairs of the complainant for or on account of the manufacture or sale of nonintoxicating beer in alleged violation of said portions of said acts of Congress; and that the complainant may have such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and equitable in the premises.

Complainant further prays that it be granted a restraining order and preliminary injunction pending the final hearing and decision of this cause, whereby the said defendants, their agents, servants, subordinates and employees, and each and every of them, be enjoined and restrained as hereinbefore prayed, and that upon final hearing the said injunction shall be made perpetual.

Wherefore the complainant prays that a writ of subpoena issue herein directed to the above named defendants and each of them, commanding them on a day certain to appear and answer this bill of complaint.

JACOB RUPPERT, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

I am and for over four years last past have been the president of Jacob Ruppert, the complainant corporation above-named. I have read the foregoing bill of complaint and know the contents thereof, and the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true.

FORM IV.-BILL FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST DISTRICT

ATTORNEY TO RESTRAIN ENFORCEMENT OF

UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT OF CONGRESS.

[Injunction granted 247 U. S. 251.]

In the District Court of the United States for the Western District of North Carolina.

To the Honorable, the Judge of the District Court of the United States for the Western District of North Carolina:

Plaintiffs, citizens and residents of the United States and of the Western District of the State of North Carolina, bring this, their bill of complaint, against the Fidelity Manufacturing Company, a corporation of the State of North Carolina, with its principal office at Charlotte, in the Western District of North Carolina, and William C. Hammer, a citizen and resident of the United States and of the Western District of North Carolina, duly appointed, qualified and acting United States Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, and thereupon complain and respectfully represent and allege as follows:

I. Plaintiffs are citizens and residents of the United States and of the Western District of North Carolina; plaintiffs Reuben Dagenhart and John Dagenhart are minors, the sons of and residing with their father Roland H. Dagenhart; said Roland H. Dagenhart is their Prochien Ami, duly appointed and authorized by order of this Court to bring this suit on their behalf; defendant Fidelity Manufacturing Company is a corporation of the State of North Carolina, with its principal office at Charlotte in the Western District of said state; defendant William C. Hammer is a citizen and resident of the United States and the Western District of North Carolina, and is the duly appointed, qualified and acting United States Attorney for said Western District of North Carolina. II. Defendant Fidelity Manufacturing Company is engaged in the operation of a cotton mill at Charlotte, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, for the manufacture of cotton yarns and cloths; employed in said factory are the said Reuben Dagenhart and John Dagenhart, plain