The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1920-04-06
ARGUMENTS HEARD on
DRY AMENDMENT

Washington April 4.--Three cases
bearing on the validity OF the prohi-
bition amendment were argued before
the United States supreme court this
week. There were the original suit
brought by the state of New Jersey
and appealed cases from that state
and from Wisconsin,. Practically the
same issues were involved as in the
Rhode island. Massachusetts, and
Kentucky eases recently argued in the
~ me court.
The original New Jersey suit, how
ever. embodied more extensive at
tack uuor the validity OF the eigh-
teenth Amendment and portions of
the enforcement act, The point en-
phasized in the Wisconsin suit was
the right to manufacture and sell beer
alleged to be non Intoxicating, but
containing more than one-half of one
per cent of alcohol.
Thomas +. McCran. attorney-gen-
eral OF New Jersey. alleged in his
brief that the eighteenth amend
meut is Legislative by nature and revo-
lutionary in character; that it was
not constitutionaily proposed. that
the proposal liz subject to judicial re-
view: that congress did not, by two
thirds in both houses, vote affirma
lively for the resolutions; that three
fourths OF the states have not ratified
I'm q constitutional sense, that 1t is
not appropriate legislation that there
is no right in congress TO Iegislate
outside of the amendment; that the
words beverage purposes sufti
GENTLY describe the limits within
which congress shall legislate, and
that the term Intoxicating liquors"
& IaA All no NoJ
stead act is unconstitutional and OPP
pressive. and that the institutions
owned and conducted in New Jersey
are INSTRUCTED and hampered by the
act of congress.
", j. Frierson. assistant attorney
general. dealt with the power to
amend and the concurrent powers.
Wayne L. Wheeler, Walter H.
Bender, and four other attorneys flee
a brief in the cases in which it was
claimed;
The purpose Of the eighteenth
amendment was 20 accomplish
throughout the United States and all
complete and absolute prohibition of
the manufacture, sale. transporta-
ton importation, and expectation of
intoxicating liquors for beverage pur-
poses The duty of enforcing this
prohibition was laid upon congress
conveniently with the states and
the imposition of the duty carried
with it authority to do all things rea
sonably necessary for it's accomplish
ment.
The definition OF Intoxicating 'LG-
uors embodied in the Nolstead act is
legitimate exercise by congress Of
the power OF enforcement conferred
upon 1t by the eighteenth amendment.
This definition operated as a legis
lative determination by congress that,
to enforce the prohibition declared by
he eighteenth amendment, was
necessary to prohibit the specified hev-
erages, whether intoxicating in fact nr
not. This determination was fully sup
ported by facts, and hence was reason
able.
Since the determination expressed
in the definition clause was reasonable
and reasonably adapted to accomplish
the end sought-the prohibition OF
beverages, intoxicating in fact. it con-
stitutes appropriate legislation to en-
force the eighteenth amendment aud
is valid
The purpose of the eighteenth
amendment in reference to concurrent