Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1917-12-29
DRYS FEAR A JOKER.
Fear One Section May Nuilify Pro.
hihition Amendment.

Washington, Dec. 2s.-lnSpired oy :
possibility that the constitutions
amendment for national prohibition
just passed by congress, contains q
Joker that would nulify it after IL
has been ratified, prohibition forces
are contemplating the institution o.
legal proceedings to pass upon inc
question.
Representative Randall, Of California
a member of the prohibition party, has
made the first move in this direction
He is OF the opinion that such suit
ought to be started Immediately, and
will confer with other leaders Of the
dry forces. with a view to having the
question settled before the campaign
begins for ratification by the states.
The prohibition amendment passed
by congress contains a provision that
IS without precedent in the history OF
constitutional amendments. Secion 3
Of the amendment fixes time limit OF
seven Years within which the states
must act upon the measure. Failure
to act within that time, either by rai-
tication or rejection renders the pro-
posed amendment imperative
In both senate and house, members
who favor prohibition and voted for
the amendment sought TO have this
section eliminated on the ground that
il was plain violation Of other parts
of the constitution, not specifically
amended by the new measure Article
Of the constitution. which outlines
the precise method by which constitu-
tional amendments shall be submitted
by congress TO the states, was cited as
the particular part. Of the constitution,
which, II was contended. was fatty
disoheyed by having the seven-year
limitation attached 10 the prohibition
amendment
Senator Borah. OF Idaho, a profound
constitutional lawyer as well as an
advocate OF prohibition. coutended that
congress was not submitting the
amendment to the states at all. because
the method of submission was not fol-
lowed. nor did the prohibition amend
ment pretend to amend the constitu-
ton by providing a new method
Representative Reav!s. Of Nebraska,
a member of the judiciary committee,
raised the question OF the integrity OF
section 3 OF this amendment in an
other form. While not suggesting that
courts would hold that congress had
not submitted the amendment. ne did
express the apprehension that the
courts would hold that the seven year
Limitation might be considered as an
.nducement for the passage Of the
measure, and by that criterion hold 1t
unconstitutional.
Prohibition members Of con gress are
beginning to see now significance in
the attitude OF the wet members toward
this section which they did not see
at the time II was under discussion.
There was not a member OF either
the house or senate opposed to prohi-
billion who raised the question Of the
constitutionalsty OF this section. On
the contrary. they made the most
vigorous arguments in support OF its
constitutionality. They also voted
against the entire prohibition amend
ment, but voted in favor Of having
section 8 included in It.
Is It possible that a trap was laid
into which the dry forces were neatly
caught? This is what the prohibition
members are now asking themselves.
If so. they consider that by having the
whole question passed upon in advance
OF the ratification campaign by a court
Of competent jurisdiction, the question
could be settled once for all.