East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current, 1919-04-25
Lawyers Are in Panic as They
See the Clash of Opposing
Decisions Draw Near.

n matter within it's control State laws must
give way in view of the regulation OF the SUD-
ject matter by the superior power conferred by
the Constitution"
Now. one OF the constitutional objections
urged to the prohibition amendment Is that It
infrlnses upon State rights and deprlves the
States OF the police power reserved to them
under tho tenth amendment to the consti-
tuition. Yet here without any constitutional
amendment the decision OF tho majority of
the Supreme Court accords to the federal gov
ornmcnt powers. which, said Mr.. Justice Me-
Reynolds. in an opinion dissenting from that
of Justice Day. "opens possibilities for partisan
and sectional legislation which may destroy
proper control OF their own affairs by the
several States"
There Is then dscerned In this deciaion q
clear portent of the modern tendency toward
federaiixedl control. and q purpose to aid the
central government In arrosatInE 10 Itself
rights even now supposed to inhefe TO thelsev-
erai States.
1t was long ago decided In tho case OF
Martin VS. Hpnter that "ths government OF
tie United States can claim no powers which
are mot granted to It By the Constitution. sand
the powers actually granted must be such
as are expressly given. or given by necesssary
Implication" But In the present instance the
prohibition amendment has been duty adopted
as part of the Constitution. and having be-
come part thereof the police power thereby
delegated. by necessary Implication. TO the
federal authorities Is no longer one or the
powers reserved to tho States BY the tenth
=. H. I'D
Connecticut and New Jersey have mot rati-
fled the eighteenth amendment Is not mate
rial. The Constitution designates the method
of amendment and if this method is adhered
to the amendment itself becomes a part OF
the Constitution.
This brings us TO the other constitutional
question:-Was the amendment submitted for
ratification In accordance with the provisions
OF Article v OF the Constitution? II has been
claimed not The basis OF this contention -
that two-thlrds of all the members OF both
houses of Congress did not concur in propos-
ing the amendment. At the same term Mt
which the Hill decision Just referred TO was
rendered. the Supreme Court decided the case
OF Missouri Pacific Halfway Company vs.
state Of Kansas, which, while not exactly IN
point. mus, effectuaily dispel any dodbt a. To
the answer to the question just propoundcd.
This was q prosecution charging the trsns-
portation of liquors into the Stale OF Kansas
in contravention of the webb-kenyon Act
The defence was that this act was Invalid
Chief Justice White delivered the opinion OF
the court. He stated the soIs issue involved
In these words.-- -
'"The proposition Is this. that ss the pro-
vision of tho Constitution exactiny two
thirds vote OF each house to pass bill over
a veto means a two-thlrds vote not OF
fy.o shsrr
OF the body the ebb-Kenyon Act wssTHsvsr
enacted into law. because after Its veto BY the
President 1t received In the Senate ori. .
two-thirds vot. the Senators press -
auorum), which was less than ltwo-this>s -
all the members .,ected to and entities 10
sit in that bosy"
,,n
'"'oss 7he
Now. this is the precise question pressstins
itself with regard to the validity Of this assd-
ment. Is ths fact that the arnendms.t sas
proposed By less than two-thirds OF Al the
members of both houses sufficient 70 iesndss
its submission a nuliity? Justice white In
the course of his opinion examined with arsaf
care the law applicable 20 consuiutionsi
amendments. He called attention to the fact
that tho first ten amendments to the Con-
stitutlon. which were declared IN force De-
cember Is, 17gt, all submitted by Con-
Eress by vote Of. less than two thirds of Its
entire membership and then he said:-
''The identity Between the pfovisions OF Ar
tcIe OF the Constitution, giving power oy
a two thirds vote to submit amendments. and
the requirements we considering as to the
two-thlrds vote necessary to override veto
makes the practice as to the one applicable
to the other"
In conclusion he quoted the ruling Of speaker
tB cAAN AnA