Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1918-02-02
POLICE POWER
AND PROHIBITION
w. L. Marburg Denies the Right
of the Maryland Legislature to
Ratify the Amendment
To NE Editor Of Erenlng ruouc Ledger:

To The Editor Of Evening Public Ledger
Slr---A novel reason for opposition to the
ratification of the amendment TO the Con
stitution OF the United states, providing LOT
national prohibition. was advanced IN ,ne
course OF the discussion OF that subject pc
fore Il committee OF the Maryland Isegisla-
ture. ~ was. In effect that a legislator
who has taken oath TO uphold the Con
sttution OF the state of Maryland cannot
ALLEVIATE the regulation Of any OF the national
affairs Of the Commonwealth without vtolat-
ing his oath and therefore ratification ts
beyond the power of the Maryland LeEis-
lature.
The point was raised by William L. Mar
burg. one OF tho leading lawyers OF the
State. il will doubtless apply to legislators
OF other States having similar provisions
in state Constitutions
Maryland's Constitution provides that "the
people Of this state have the sole and eN-
elusive right OF regulating the internal gov
erhment and police power thereof as a free
sovereign and independent state"
Mr. Marburg. commenting on this pro-
vision. said: II do not care how much YOU
believe In prohibition, the right to say
whether We shall have Il or not should not
be taken away from the people OF Mary
land"
After explaining what constitutes the po-
lice power OF State which includes the
authority to legislate concerning the liquor
traffic. he said "Now ! question. and
question most earnestly both the legal and
absolutely the moral right of this Assembly
to surrender any part OF that power without
n mandate and instructions from the people
OF the state to do"
This assertion apparently raises the pre-
sumption that il state Legislature acts In
contravention of a state Constitution, in
fatlfyinC an amendment n the National
constitution. such ratification may be null
nrtd ny the courts. just as other uncon-
sutu'lonaI laws are nullncd, Can a state
either through It's General Assembly or by
referendum give it's assent to an amend
ment to tho United States Constitution that
Cohl'icts with its own Constitution. without
hfst altering the State Constitution?
WIN abundant opportunities TO apply tho
pron,o'ton principle. wherever It is desired
ny me local electorate. and to secure It's rigid
enforcement by national co.oneration tbro,,gh
control or interstate commorce already pro.
Nl"ed Tor In the Constitution OF the United
S,IeN' inc movement to incorporate into the
.N'''onaI constitution virtually irrepealable
nousn poSs'oiy inoperative, clause is amaz.
i"E' nc desire of minorties TO control ma
Joritles, and of one state 70 imposc Iav,s a,
another state may be UNDERSTOOD although
II involves vicious principle
rue Incidental complaisancc of nnn,ber PC
VI "t'te Legislatures to the sacrifice of their
oNH power ana authority that ig involved &c
the mystifying element of the pending reyo-
.utionarN alteration Of the character of ,ho
fundamental law. which will transform IL
INTO an inneNible police code. Never. per-
maps since the time OF the Medes and per-
SANS has the idea of unalterable laws been
popuar' certainly never before in the his
torF or thls republic have lawmakers seemed
eager TO diminish their own authority Here
iotoie they have always been jealous of any
INVASION thereof The question now arises
Whetner they will not only seek TO ALLEVIATE
t@nclr @ own jurisdiction but will do 50 in disre.
GAru or the express resolutions of stat, ,on
sttutions. viii not this be legally wrong ne
well as morally wrong? "
We, W. Il. HAMILTON.
iagerstown. Md, February @