The Washington times., 1919-04-07

Knotty legal problems, bearing di-
rectly or indirectly on both wartime
and constitutional prohibition, were
today threatening e. to clutter the
docket of the United States Supreme
Court. Pending anticipated appeals
to the country's final tribunal from
conflicting decisions like the above,
the State Of Rhole Island is reported
about to make a test case before the
Supreme Court of the constitutional
ity of national prohibition.
According to a well-defined report
current in the Supreme Court room,
distinguished counsel, acting in the
name Of Rhode Island, will soon file
briefs there in which the legality of
the constitutional prohibition amend
ment Is to be attacked on various
grounds, including the right of sew
eEaI State legislatures to ratify the
amendment because OF the existence
in those States Of. q referendum.
Prohibition leaders here declared
they were already prepared to meet
the latter contention with one -tiat,
inasmuch as Rhode Island, whose
legislature refused to ratify the
amendment, Is without q referendum,
she is not entitled TO needle with .hc
affairs Of those States that possess
one.
Could Expedite Case.
However soon Rhode Island, whose
proposed action is described here as
having been authorized by her legis-
lature, may seek to-have her test case
placed on the Supreme Court docket,
it cannot, under the rules OF pro-
- I'D ha n
until the next term, which starts IN
October next. The court could, how
ever, then expedite the case, aid
.Wets" here who are apparently seek
ing some ray Of hope from Rhode
Islands move, expressed the BELIEF
that there wouldn't be much difficulty
IN having a final decision handed
down before constitutional prOhibi-
tion is scheduled to go into effect on
| January 16, 1920.
While constitutional prohibition is
looming up in the Supreme Court. the
question Of whether wartime prohib-
ition is or is not to become effective
on July 1. 1919. is one that was be-
coming today more and more a sub
/ ject for heated argument between
''wets" and .'drys." 1t was not re-
| garded as at all unlikely that the
/
eide when the war did legally end
but hardly before the next term OF
court, IL such q decision is expected
as a result Of the opposing views oi
| Federal Judge Evans and Federal
| Judge Cushman, by which time, July
1, 1919, would have passed into his
| tory.
The White House is certain to b.
watched closely, upon the President
return, by both prohibitionists anC
anti-prohibitionists, for with him viii
rest the power to revoke or not re
woke the order for wartime prohibi
ton. "Wets" admitted they were no
| pfnning too much hope on a revoca
ton Of the order; "drys" predicted
that it would not be revoked.
Probably Get IL Straight.
In the meanwhile official wash
ington was still discussing today ;
circumstantial story from PennSSl
vania, the home State Of Attorne!
General A. Mitchell Palmer, that
| prominent Democrat who ran on tn
Democratic ticket in that State a
last years election, upon returning
to Allentown from Washington, hat
offered to wager $1,000 to $500 tha
the wartime prohibition order Woult
be revoked by June l.
THE wet prophet is close enougl
to at least one Cabinet officer L
have received straight tip as to Ad
minfstration plans" ran this story.
ITO be or not to be-" seems to sun
up the prohibition situation. whici
at present is again running at higl
fever pitch in official and unofficis
circles Of the nations "bone-dry
Canffal