New Mexico state record. (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1914-19??, 1920-06-11
PROHIBITION IS
constitutional
AND ENFORCEMENT ACT
HELD VALID.
"DRY" ACT UPHELD
OPINION RENDERED BY JUSTICE
VAN DEvANTER WITH Nc.
kENNA DISSENTING.

-NfNNldlfi mo NV 'tiNiNts
Washington, June S.-Both the fed
eral prohibition amendment and the
enforcement act passed hy Congress
have been held constitutional by the
Supreme Court.
The opinion WAS rendered by AssO-
ciate Justice Van Devantrr.
Permission To file motions asking
for rehearing of ia" cases was given
by the court at the request of the at
torneys in the various prohibition
cases.
While the vote of the court on the
main decision has n yet been an
nounced, ii is known that at least JUS
tice Mckenna dissented.
The court dismissed petitions filed
by the state of Rhode Island Ia lave
federal officials cnjohned from enforc-
ing prohibition in that state.
InjunctionS restraining prohibition
officials from interfering with the
Manitowoc Products Company, II Wis
ronsin corporation, In the Manufacture
OF beer containing more than u of l
per cent of alcohol We're dissolved by
the court.
The court upheld federal court de-
crees disImissing proceedings brought
10 enjoin the prohibition amendment
from being enforced against Christian
Feigenspan, a brewer of Newark, y. j..
Federal court DEGREES dismlssing in
junction proceedings instituted by the
Kentucky Distilleries and Warehouse
Company of Louisville, Ky, to enjoin
enforcement OF the act against it, were
sustained by the court. lnjuncti0ns
sought by George &. Dempsey, IL Bos-
ton, Mass, wholesale liquor dealer TO
restrain enforcement of the enforce
ment act against him, were also denied
by the court.
The court held as follows:
1.-THE adoption of both houses Of
Congress, each by II two-thlrds vote,
of n joint resolution proposing an
amendment to the constitution suffi-
ciently shows that the proposal was
deemed necessary by all WHIT voted
for il. An express declaration that
they regarded it as necessary is not
essential. None of the resolutions
whereby prior amendments were pro-
posed contained such II declaration.
"2-The t|wo-thirdS vote in each
house, which is required in proposing
IN amendment, is a vote of two-thirds
of the members present assuming the
presence of Il qnorum-and not II vote
of two-thirds of the entire membership
present and absent. Missouri Pacific
Railway Company vs.. Kansas, 2iS. U.
:. 276.
"3-The referendum provisions OF
state constitutions and statutes can
not be applied consistently with tho
constitution of the United States In
the ratification or rejection of amend
ments TO it. Hawke W.. smith,. :,
decided June |, 1920.
1.-THE prohibition of the manufac-
ture, sale, transportation, importation
and expectation of Intoxicating liquors
for beverage purposes, as embodied in
the eighteenth amendment. is within
the power Ia amend reserved by article
8 Of the constitution.
"5-That amendment by lawful pro-
posal and ratification has become a
part of the constitution and must he
respected and given effect the same
as other provisions of that instrument.
The court also dismissed Injunction
proceedings brought by the state OF
New Jersey to prevent enforcement or
prohibition within that state.
Federal court DEGREES denying sim
liar injunctlons sought by the ST. Louis
Brewing Association, likewise, were af-
firmed.