Arizona republican., 1918-02-23
An ineffective Handicap

Seven states we believe have ratified the national prohibition amendment, two of which were not dry states. Evidently these states have taken no in the theory that the amendment has not been legally submitted to them by the fact that it was vtated by the limitation put upon it, requiring that 1t must be ratified or rejected in seven years
 There is nothing in the constitution expressly forbdding congress from imposing this condition on the submission of constitutional amendments. Ap- parently the chief fact relied on to support the view that congress has authority to limit the pendency of proposed amendment is that it has done before The practice has been to submit without any time limitation whatever, and submitted, amendment remained pending until it had been rati- fled by the necessary three -fourths of the states. Even rejection by than one-fourth has not operated to end the pendency of the amendment; for while ratification is not revocabe rejection is. once legislature ratfes the state is committed fin ally a rejection by legislature does not debar a subsequent legislature from ratfying. Thus the advantage is given to the affirmative side of whatever contest the submission of a constitutional amendment occasions. In a kind of implicit way the presump ton to be cast in favor of the amendment sub mitted.
 Whether the submission is vitiated by the mita ton put the pendency of the proposed prohibition amendment is a question which probably only those minds trained in the subeties of the law compe- tent to examine. All that layman might venture to say is that there is an innovation in the of this submission The effect it is deprive states of the unlimited opportunity they have heretofore had to their decisions when the first decision has been against the proposal In practice at least all the ages of the future have been given states to their way if perchance their first decision was to reject the proposal In this instance the day of grace the period possible illumination is limited to seven years Thus in theory, there is conflict between the innovation and the practice and it is innovation which, conceivaby at least contracts the opportunity of this amendment.
 With the submission thus limited, the opposition only hold the fort for years in thr teen states to bring about final defeat of the pro- posal which could be revived only by an act of submission; whereas under the practice of the past, the opposition would have to be maintained perpet ualy. Here, may suspect was the consideration which chiefly influenced many of those who insisted limiting the pendency of this proposed amend ment. They were, for the part, anti -prohibi- tionsts, and they actuated in all likelihood, both by desire to gain the tactical advantage the opposition would derive from having the life of the submission limited and by the better wish to make the confusion which this issue puts politics terminable. If prohibition sentiment continues to grow it has during the last years the years which the resolution submitting the proposed amendment provides will not be needed to bring it's ratification. But while that is true it is equally so the longer the time given, the likely is it that the amendment will be eventually ratified That the prohibtonists willing to have the question submitted under this limitation is doubtless a sign of their confidence.
 There is why the campaign should be halted pending the determination of the legal ques ton that has been raised. The prohibtionists of course would be foolish to do so since they fight ing under time limit If the question should be answered in their favor, their work would be effective if the question had not been raised And if, before the final answer to the legal question, -ourths nearly -fourths of the states had ratified they would have made demonstration of strength which could be relied to bring about promptly resubmission of the question in the incumbered way of the past if the present submission should be held illegal
 If the ratification proceeds rapidly as it has done far, the years will not be required and we do believe that national prohibition would be invalidated just because it had triumphed over a handicap which should never have been placed upon 1t.
 al n