New-York tribune., 1919-12-06
Suit Started
To Kill Dry
Amendment
Vigilance League of New
York Brings First Action
to Contest Validity of
National Prohibition
NeW York Tribune
WdshimQton Bureau

NeW York Tribune
Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON. Dec. 5-The first
suit to contest the validity of the ma
tional prohibition amendment was
brought to-day in the Supreme Court
of the District of Columbia in behalf
CT the Vigilance League through it's
counsel, Richard S. Harvey. of Wash
ington, D. c.; Everett V. Abbott
George w. Tucker and Benjamin
Tuska of New York City.
The league is an association of citi-
zens of New York City in no manner
connected with any liquor interests.
Among its members are Professors
Franklin H. Giddings and Richard
Morse Hodge, of Columbia University;
Chemists Club; Edward j. Shriver,
president of the Reform Club; john
Drew, president of the Players; Henry
Bacon, architect of the Lincoln Me-
mortal; DR.. John P DAWN, DR.. William
S. Gottheil Oliver Herford, Charles
A. Pratt, George C. Riggs, Louis w.
Frothingham and John Wolcott Adams
The proceedings take the form of
petition for writ of mandamus di-
recting Robert Lansing, Secretary of
State, to recall and cancel the proca-
January 29, 1919, certifying that the
Eighteenth Amendment had been duly
proposed and ratified.
A writ of mandamus would virtually
expunge the Eighteenth Amendment
from the published laws of the coun-
try and from the Constitution of the
United States, and would therefore
arrest the enforcement of the amend
ment at its source.
If the decision of the Supreme Court
of the District of Columbia should be
taken to the Supreme Court Of the
United States, which will. open the
way for an early decision of the whole
question of the validity of the Eigh-
teenth Amendment
The suit is brought by Robert A.
Widenmann, of West Haverstraw
N. Y, as citizen who has no pecu-
mary interest in the manufacture or
sale of alcoholic beverages. It's pur-
pose is to establish the fact that all
TIE citizens of the United States,
regardless of their BUSINESS interests
are vitality affected by the Eighteenth
Amendment, which, it is declared
never was properly submitted TO the
several states, was not legally ratified
by two thirds of the state legislatures
and is wholly void. as being in direct
conflict with the purpose of the Con-
stitution of the United States.
The point is made that if the Eigh-
teenth Amendment has been consti-
tutionally adopted the prohibitionists
have discovered a method of Destroy
ing all the rights and liberties of
the, people which are guaranteed as
inalienable by the Constitution, and
that if they have been successful there
is no longer either Constitution, or
a federal or republican form of
government.
There are many grounds upon which
the amendment is alleged to be in
valid. Most of them are wholly novel
and different from any that have
hitherto appeared in print.
1t is asserted that the states can
not be deprived of their sovereign
rights without their unanimous CON
sent; that the people of the United
States cannot be deprived of their
inalienable rights even by a majority
vote of the people; that the members
of Congress and of the state legisla-
lures act only with delegated powers,
and that these powers do not include
the power to surrender the sovereign
rights of the states or impair or
abridge the inalienable rights of the
citizens.