Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1919-01-24
As Vets View II.

Washington, Jan. E.-.Now whatP' is the
big question with those interested in the fight
for national prohibition, rs it law? Is
there any other loophole?''
Yes, its law. True, only IA states have mo-
titled the government of their ratification,
but the amendment became law when the
fcation was announced
The only loophole-ano its Sights that the
ratification in a number of states may be held
Illegal There's fight on over this now in
California, where the government has been
restrained temporarily from certifying the
legislatures ratification till it is decided
whether the people have right to review the
legislatures action, under the state referen-
dunn law.
Twelve other states have referendum laws,
but only one of them is wet.
Each state is required to certify to the de-
partment of state that its legislature has rati-
fed the amendment. When the So states have
so certified, Acting Secretary of State Polk
will issue proclamation declaring the
amendment adopted This is merely a formal
itys No further action is necessary either by
congress or by supreme court. One year
from the day on which the thirty-sixth state
Nevertheless the vets have not given up the
fight.
Congress still has to pass legislation, setting
forth the legal definition of Intoxicating
liquor and fixing penalties for violations of
the amendment and this legislation may be
annulled in effect. by any future congress, in
either one of two ways: by wiping out the
penalty for violating or by new and liberal
definition of the percentage of alcohol shat
constitutes Intoxicating liquor
Vets, however, are not depending entirely
on a lenient congress-
Their first fight is in the states that have
referendum laws.
The prohibition amendment was by act of
congress submitted to the legislatures, not to
the people Of the states.
The constitution provides that congress may
submit proposed amendments either to the
states or to constitutional conventions. The
question here to be decided Isl
Can the people of a state overturn the
act of it's legislature in matter which
congress submitted to the legislature,
not to the people?
There are Ave states which, the vets assert,
will not ratify the dry amendment in their
legislatures.
If this estimate is true, the vets still need to
overturn the legislatures action in eight
of the Is referendum states to prevent 36
states voting dry.
That means that, with the aid~of their five
last-ditch hopes, the vets must overturn the
legislatures vote for the dry amendment in
six dry states.
Drys say it can't be done.
Vets may also ask the supreme court to
rule that congress authority in proposing a
national prohibition amendment extends only
to interstate matters; that 36 states, or mora,
cannot make laws for IL states, or less, is a
matter affecting the states only If the SUI
preme court should take this view it would be
practically equivalent to declaring the consti-
tutional amendment unconstitutional altho
the decision would necessarily be not on the
amendment itself but on the act of congress
proposing it. Drys say the distinction is SO
slight as to be non-exlstant.
Dry leaders admit it will be gigantic task
to enforce the law, but are planning on feder-
al legislation to make it possible to take away
a physicians or druggists license if he sells
liquor for beverage purposes. 1t will be law
full to manufacture it for medicinal, scientific
pharmaceutical or sacramental purposes
tremendous force Of detectives and in
vestigors will be employed to prevent moon
shining in private homes, or making wine in
private vineyards,
The Anti-Saloon League figures the nations
annual liquor bill at two and half billion
dollars enough, in two years. to float a Liber-
ty loan.
The annual liquor revenue lost to the gov
eminent approximates $3OO.OOO,OOO in normal
times and $500, 900 900 in war time
Property loss to brewers and distillers, say
dry leaders, will be inconsiderable, because
their plants can be turned to other uses.