The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1918-11-02

duct. IL we begin with putting pro-
hibition regulations in the Constitu-
ton we shall find other subjects,
also not relating to the basic rules of
republic, crowded upon US for
place in that document. This course
will bring the Constitution into dis
repute and result in frequent changes
and finally in its overthrow.
Another reason why the proposed
prohibition amendment should not be
ratified is that the amendment has
never been passed on by the Senate
Washington and submitted to the
states in accordance with the provi-
sions of the federal Constitution. The
Constitution provides in Article V
that 1.-The Congress, whenever two
thirds of both houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose amendments
to this Constitution"
Article V of the Constitution also
requires that three-fourths of the
states shall ratify any proposed
amendment. 1t does not say three
fourths of those that vote, but three
fourths of the states. A state may
refuse to vote upon the subject and
if one state can refuse to vote, then
twenty-three of them may so refuse,
and three-fourths of the other TWEEN
ty-five. may ratify the so-called ac-
ton of Congress; thus twenty-five be-
ing a majority or quorum Of the for
ty-eight, the proposed amendment
would be a part of the Constitution
by the ratification of only nineteen
states if this method of amendment
should prevail.
Those on favor of standing by the
so-called precedents made by the
speakers of the National House of
Representatives and by the presi-
dents of the Senate hold that the
word houses" means q session Of the
houses, capable of doing ordinary bus
mess; that is, a majority or quorum
present. This matter of amendment
to the Constitution is not the ordinary
business of the legislative branch Of
the government.
1t is, therefore, evident that the
trainers OF the Constitution considered
the proposing of amendments an ex-
traordinary power outside Of the or
binary business of Congress. Any
precedents made by the House and
Senate in reference to overruling a
veto Of the President where two
thirds vote is required, are we believe
not binding upon this state in its view
with reference to this extraordinary
exercise of constitutional power OF
Congress.
We think the proposed prohibition
amendment has never been properly
passed by the National Senate and
House of Representatives and, there
fore, it should not be ratified by the
states.
Section 2 of the resolution propos-
ing that THE Congress and the sew
eral states shall have concurrent
power to enforce this article by ap-
propriate legislation"
This provision is so clearly wrong
that to make it a part of the Consti-
| tuition would be a most unfortunate
event 1t would introduce an elemen
Of confusion in the enforcement of E
/ great police power. No matter wha'
! views may be entertained by a person
upon the subject of national prohibi
| ton, it is of the utmost importance
that in respect to matters confided t.
| the Federal government that tha
government should have supreme
power.
Constitutional authorities univer'
sally agree that the United State!
would never have risen to the dignity
of a nation were it not for the pro
vision that this Constitution and the
laws of the United States made in &C
cordance Herewith and all treatie!
shall be the supreme law of the lant
and the judges in every state shall BIZ
bound thereby anything in the Con
stitution and law of any state to thu
contrary Notwithstanding.
The prohibition amendment nov
under consideration specially confer'
upon the Congress and the severa
states concurrent power to enforct
this article by appropriate legislation
1t has been held by good lawyers
that the proposed amendment would
extend the power of the several state
over interstate and foreign commerce
as it certainly extends the power o
the United States over the manufac
ture and the consumption within tn
several states.
If the amendment were adopted, i
would doubtless lead to grave con
. f1ict between the Federal government
and the states and would give rise t.
antagonistic legislation between tn
states themselves and between tn
states and the United States.
For the first time in the history o
ri ho Y-otifnotinT n
this proposed prohibition amendmen
would introduce into the fundamenta
law of the United States a questio
of jurisdiction, that is, of concurren
Jurisdiction between the states an
{ the nation in regard to a matter com
mitted to the National government
1t is going back to the false princi
pies of the states rights leaders G
t Calhoun's time and revification {
t the old idea of condominium, whic
g ares ure to always cause trouble.
Ample Power in States.
: The states already have the powe
5 to prohibit the transportation an
! dealing and use of liquor within then
selves and the United States Congre!
I has passed an act prohibiting tt
} transportation of liquor into any sta
or through any state, where that
e prohibited by the state government
The Supreme Court of the Unite
: States has approved and found tt
act constitutional. This law is know
as the Webb-Kenyon act and by
and under it any state has full pow;
| 10 fully control the use, sale, tran
portation and manufacture of liquor
. etc, within its own limits.
. The very evident intent then of II
= proposed prohibition amendment
!, to force its provisions upon tho'
states which do not want 1t. 1t
= clear that in such state at least the