Evening Republican, Volume 23, Number 138, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 8 June 1920 — AMENDMENT NOW A LAW [ARTICLE]

AMENDMENT NOW A LAW

SUPREME COURT KNOCKS ALL THE PROPS FROM UNDER THE “WETS.” Washington, June 7.—The United State Supreme court today upheld constitutional prohibition. The eighteenth amendment to the constitution was held to. be valid. In the same decision the. court held that the Volstead enforcement act is also void. While attorneys for the interests attacking the two measures were granted permission to file motions for re-hearings, the decision Was regarded generally as striking a death blow to the hopes of the wets. The court’s opinion, -rendered by Justice Van Deventer, was sweeping. It held that the amendment not only came within the amending power conferred by the federal constitution, but was legally proposed and now was the law of the land. While recognizing that congress has limitations in respect to the enforcement of laws regarding beverages, the court held those limits were not transcended in the enactment of the enforcement act restricting alcoholic content of intoxicants to' one-half of one percent. While New York, New Jersey and'Wisconsin acts permitting manufacture and sale of beverages of more than one-half of one per cent alcoholic content were not directly involved, the decision was interpreted as invalidating them. The court said the first section of the amendment of its own force “invalidates any legislative act —whether by congress or by a state legislature, or by a territorial assembly —which authorizes or sanctions what the section prohibits.” Concurrent powers granted by the amendment to federal and state government to enforce prohibition, the court further held “does not enable congress or the several states to defeat or thwart prohibition, but only to enforce it by appropriate means.” The decision of the court was set forth in eleven conclusions covering seven separate proceedings. These proceedings included original suits brought by the state of Rhode Island directly attacking the constitutionality of the amendment. While agreeing as to validity of the amendment and enforcement act, Justices McKenna and Clarke dissented from the majority interpretation of the concurrent power of federal and state governments to enforce prohibition. Chief Justice White held that the court should set forth the reasoning for its decision. He did this in a supplemental opinion. . . Justice Mcßeynolds, in a brief statement, declared he was of the opinion that it was impossible to say at this time what construction should be given to the amendment He added that “because of the bewilderment which the amendment creates” he preferred to remain free to consider the multitude of questions which will “inevitably arise and demand solution.” The decision set at rest contentions proviously laid before the court that the amendment could not affect alcoholic liquors manufactured prior to January 16, when the amendment became effective. The court held that the amendment applied to such liquors the same as any produce after that time. - Regarding arguments to the effect that a state having constitutional —referendum provisions could not have been said to have ratified the amendment until it had been submitted to the voters, the court cited its opinion rendered last Monday in the Ohid referendum case in which it held that such provisions do not apply to federal amendments.. . . Only one prohibition case of importance remains undecided. It is an appeal from New York involving the constitutionality of portions of the enforcement act prohibiting storage in warehouses of intoxicating liquors designed for use. This case was argued this spring but with the court's, adjournment today for the summer cannot be decided before October at the earliest.