Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1919-11-18
CERTAIN NATIONAL
PROHIBITION WILL
NOT Be DELAYED
Anti-SaIoon Official Says
Constitution, Not ProcIama-
ton, Fixes Time.

1.-THE results of the elections in Ohio
and Kentucky, despite everything that
has been said and written. will have
no appreciable effect on national pro-
hibition," says Edwin c. Dinwiddie.
legislative superintendent of the Anti
SaloonsLeague of America and 9, rum
Der OF allied temperance organiLa-
tions.
yKentucky's elections would seryee to
strengthen the dry hold on the Ncoun-
try, for she voted dry by about 5000
ma jority and became the thirty
fourth state to adopt the prohibition
policy of it's own volftion. On the
surface, according to present figures.
the result in Ohio is both mixed and
in doubt. Ohio voted by increased ma
jority to retain prohibition in her con-
stitution and defeated an attempt to
permit the manufacture and sale OF
IN per cent beer and wine by large
majority BY about 500 votes she
failed to indorse the ratification of
the national constitutional amend
ment recount of the votes is to
be had, and it is by no means certain
that enough errors or frauds will not be
unearthed to change that result.
Our contention has been. and still
ratification it will in no wise change
the result. because the vote of the
legislature, according to article V
of the Constitution. is final and con-
elusive. The only two state courts
which have held otherwise are those
of Washington and Ohio. Our latest
information is that the liquor men
have been unable to qualify for a
referendum in Washington. and the
result of the referendum in Ohio, as
e.to &c n
lieve the federal courts. to whom the
issue would be presented in case of
necessity will hold that such refer
endums are utilities under the fed
eral Constitution.
Constitution Fixes Time.
ITO show the hopelessness of the
liquor position with reference to ma
tional- brohi bition. it is only necessary
to call attention to few facts which
seem to be misunderstood or lost
sight of. In the first place the Con-
stitution, and not the proclamation of
the Secretary of State. fixes the time
when an amendment to the federal
Constitution becomes effective. That
time is when the amendment has been
ratified by three -fourthS of all the
states In the case of the eighteenth
amendment this happened on the 18th
of January. 1919. when Nebraska rat1-
q, q
the same day two other states ratified
the amendment. making thirty-eight.
or two more than the required three
fourths on the 10th of January. So.
while denying the possibility or a
state withdrawing her consent wnicn
the LIQUOR men are claiming Ohio has
done, we could still lose two states,
and neither the fact nor the actual
day of ratification would be changed.
Not only that, but on the 18th OF jan
uary two more states ratified the
amendment, making forty states in all
IN the 18th of January last. We
could therefore lose four states and
still lose but a single day in the TAX
ing effect of the amendment. On the
21st of January another state ratlneu'
on the 22d still another, and on the
18th two more, bringing Inc a to.at h up
the acting Secretary of State issued
the proclamation.
."The issuance Of the proclamation
is not because of any requirement OF
the Constitution, but is in pursuance
of section POS of the Revised Statues
and 10 wholly a matter of convenience
It's issuance neither makes the amend
mont a part of the Constitution nor
determines the date when 1t became
a part. It's language shows 1T SIMPLY
to be a statement to the erect that
certifications from the required num-
her of states are on file at the. depart
ment to show that the amendment has
been adopted.
."The liquor forces at first claimed
that there were twenty-five states in
which the referendum would be invoked.
Says Claims Absurd.
"TheT soon discovered the absurdity
Of such a claim from one cause and
another, and the last statement issued
by one of their principal counselors
claimed fourteen maximum. and even
before this number, which included
the state of Maine. was given out, the
supreme court, of that state had
unanimously held that referendum
could not be applied to the resolve
If the Maine state legislature ratify-
.ne the prohibition amendment.
IA telegram reached our office yes
+erday from Arkansas saying that the
supreme court of that state decided
against the referendum. Such action
oy state supreme court is neces-
sarily final, because it is a decision
,Continued on Second Pagel