New-York tribune., 1918-11-04
Connecticut Bar Associa-
tion Says Amendment Is
National Menace"
Deny 1t Passed
Congress Legally
Required Two-Thirds Vote
Was Lacking Is Report
of Committee

HARTFORD, Conn. Nov. 8. - The
uro,osed Federal prohibition amend
went is attacked as national menace
- review issued to-day by g COM
c,;ttee of prominent attorneys repre-
.sntins the Connecticut Bar Associ-
alton.
In it's report the committee urges
the various states in general assembly
70 refuse to ratify the amendment be-
csuse it holds that:
l. A precedent Of paternalism affect
ing the personal liberties of citizens,
oncc introduced into the general sys-
tenn of government. might lead TO 4
radical Capitalization of power in
other ways and eventually bring the
Constitution itself into disrepute
,. The amendment has not been
passed by~a full two thirds vote of the
House and the Senate, as required by
the Constitution.
Danger of Disputes
g. A clause in the amendment grant
ing Congress and the several states
concurrent power to enforce the
article" would probably lead TO grave
conflict between the Federal govern
ment and the states and would give
rise TO antagonistic legislation between
the states themselves and between the
states and the United States.
The members of the committee sign
irg the report are Silas A. Robinson
and Milton A. Shumway, former judges
tie, former judge of the Superior
Court and Attorneys Seymour c.
Loomis and Christopher L. Avery.
Judge Alton B. Parker and former
President Taft are quoted as support
ing the criticism against the amend
ment.
The report, in part. says:
in this move to amend the Consti-
tuton Of the United States your com
mlttea sees a bold and selfish reaching
for political power and control Tt. is
naIter of common KNOWLEDGE that
nany advocates of this measure have
been for years building up their politi
cal fences by endeavoring TO pande1 to
the prohibition vote without any re
gard TO its effect on our government.
"A provision of this sort placed in
the Constitution would be permanent
Federal liquor law applicable to every
state in the Union, even if some of the
CtGAOo anu tiic RcOfIt ~uGIeC1 were
opposed 10 1t, and for this reason would,
VIC think. be unenforceable in unsynl-
pathetic localities.
"Thc Constitution should be limited
70 fundamental principles of govern
Tnent and should not contain police
l. iCtsrs relating to personal conduct.
J We begin with putting prohibition
-u.ations In the Constitution We
III fad other subjects, also not re-
.1 TO the basic rules of republic.
ciowaed upon Us for d place in that
document. This course will bring the
Constitution into disrepute and result
III frequent changes and finally in its
overthrow.
Says Votes Were Lacking
Another reason why the proposed
prohibition amendment should not be
ratified in that the amendment has
never been passed on by the Senate
and House of Representatives at Wash
ngton and submitted TO the states in
*ccoraance with the provisions of the
tdcrai Constitution. The Constitution
provides, in Article '. that the Cor
-feSs, whenever twC-thirds Of both
e-sea shalt deem il necessary, shall
lopose amendments 10 this Constitu-
non Iwo-thirds OF both houses must
concur IN deemlng 1t necessary. Ac-
ceordlng to the certified statement Of
Mr Irlmble. the clerk of the national
House of Representatives there were
2o2 votes in favor of the proposed
amendment, six less than two thirds of
that house. In the Senate, according
to q like statement of Mr.. Baker. the
secretary OF the Senate there were on
the final vote only AZ in favor of the
proposed amendment, II less than
7wo-thlrds cf the upper house, and not
oYen majority