The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1919-03-24
REFERENDUM FIGHT
Of VETS HOPELESS
Ohio Vets Recognized Federal
Amendment MOI Subject TO Ref
e.cnNum When They Proposed New
Law Specifically Applying.

e.chlum When They Proposed New
Law Specifically Applying.
wv, B. Wheeler, General Counsel
Anti-Saloon League of America)
The opponents of national prohibi-
tion have chosen the referendum as
their last stand, This last objection
viii fail for these reasons: The rati-
fcation of g. federal amendment Is
not a legislative act involving legisla-
tive power subject to- referendum
II involves no Legislative discretion
as TO form, penalty or substance OF
the amendment. II is the act of
delegated body to accept or reject
tho amendment just as nominations
cf "A governor are accepted or re
iected. Rcferendums arc applicable
only to legislative acts.
The case Of Ohio VS.. fNldehrandt
is not in point, That case involved
the congressional gerrymander act.
Article l. section OF the federal
constitution provides
'''he times. places and manner OF
holding elections for senators and rem
resentativcs shall be prescribed IN
ZACH state ny the legislature thereof;
hut the congress may at any time by
law make er alter such regulations
except RS To the places of choosing
senator's
Under this authority the Ohio con-
sti'uti"n and the Legislature provid-
ed for a referendum on an act adopt
ed by the legislature The gerry
rnarder act was legislative act. The
federal constitution gave tho legis-
lature this specific authority 10 pro-
vide the time, place and manner OF
holding elections. The only limita-
ton ON this power was tho authority
of congress to alter these regula-
lions except as to the place OF choos~
ing senators. In 1911 congress
amended the law so that tho redis-
strtctnE IN state Knight he made
IN tho manner provide by the laws
thereof" There - 10 such provision
authorizing q referendum on the ac~
ton of the legislature ratifyinE a
federal amendment. The federal con-
stitution simply provides that the en-
actmcnt shall he valid, to all intents
and purposes, when ratified hv the
legislatures OF three-fourtf~s OF the
s--vvr Al e,>st+-o =, -sssafe ~ w. 1asssS~1
sion that tn" legislature may pro-
vide the time place CT manner Of
conducting m election relating to
ratification. Nor has congress PRO
vided that ratification may he com
plcted in tho manner provided by the
laws thereof. It simply points out
one method ~ ratification. TO wit; the
legislature iieeif, T. cannot sidestep.
eguivocate or shrt the responsibility.
the ease of Mcpherson w. Piacker. 4s
The United States supreme court, in
L. s. /, in referring 10 article /, sec
ton 4, hove mentioned. quoted with
approval the action OF the committee
holding that the word Legislature"
did not mean Legislative power.
The construct on of the law is cor
roborated by the opinion of the at
torney-general of Ohio in 1917, after
tho decision OF The case relied upon
by the liquor interests:
wherever state Legislature is re-
ferre3 TO In the federal cor stitution
merely as descriptive of a body of
public officers, or wherever powers
or privileges not essentially legislative
arc conferred in terms upon a state
legislature,' the presumption does not
apnly."
The courts of Ohio recognized that
Il resolution eyf the character fnvolv-,
ed in this controversy was not sub
ject to referendum. Wet leaders
accented Ii and proposed a new ref
erendunl specifically applying to con
stitutional amendments This Is the
only state OF the union providing TOT
such referendum. and IL will doubt
less be declared void. as Ii, cannot set
aside the mandate in the fedeIal. con-.
stitution. California has one of the
strongest referendum provisions in
the constitution. The superior court
of California recently held that the
federal law applied and that ref
erendum was not applicable and re-
fused to enjoin the governor from
certifying the amendment to the sec
rotary OF state.
There is another reason why the
of the liquor interests will
fail. They have chosen fourteen states
for the referendum. Even II the ques-
ton could be submitted in these states
or il Il is submitted. withouth au-
thority, II will fail. They must carry
nine and probably ten of these states
to defeat ratification. They could not
carry more than two or three at best
and probably none. Both from a
practical and a legal standpoint the
referendum hope will be shattered.
Before the opponents OF prohibit
ton can secure referendum on the
prohibition Amendment. the federal
constitution must be abandoned in a
legal and orderly manner The only
way the opponents of prohibition can
secure such an amendment is to CO.
operate in the enforcement of the
amendment and after fair trial
wiling to submit 10 this test. We
challenge our opponents to accept
-he Jesuit