Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1920-03-04
q STATES OPPOSE
RHODE ISLAND SUIT
Join Federal Govt. in Asking
That Little Rhody's Action
Toward Invalidating "Dry"
Amendment Be Dismissed

Washington, March Twenty
states Joined with the federal govern
ment to-day in asking the supreme
Court to dismiss the original SUIT
brought by Rhode Island to test the
validity of the prohibition amendment
to the Constitution.
Subscribing to a brief, which was
filed by Charles e. Hughes with the
courts permission and which asked
dismissal of the Rhode Island case on
the grounds that no iusticiablc ducs-
tons were involved. were the states
of Delaware. North Carolina, Ken
lucky. Louisiana. Indiana. Albania,
Maine, Arkansas. Michigan. Florida,
Oregon. Kansas, West Virginia. Ne
vada. Nebraska. Montana, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming.
Utah and Arizona.
Dismissal of the suit, which the govern
ment has moved. was opposed in another
brief presented by Attorney General Her
bert A. Rice of Rhode Island. who as
serted that the governments view that
the amendment Is "unassailable could
only lead to anarchy and oppression"
Another development to-day in the pro-
ceedings was indefinite postponement, by
permission of the court. of arguments,
which were to have been heard next Mon
day in order to permit appeals from
Kentucky and Massachusetts, involving
the amendments validity to be heard at
the same time. Assistant Attorney Cen
eral Frierson indicated tonight that the
arguments might be heard March Il.
In asking permission to file the brief,
Mr.. Hughes told the court that officials
of 10 of the q States had communicated
with him directly relative to opposing
~. a.
of the other two, Nevada and Kansas.
has given him authority to include them.
THE State of Rhode Island" Mr.
Hughes said in his brief. does not bring
its bill of complaint to enforce any
property right or any interest of the
State which can be regarded as the
proper subject Of judicial consideration.
If this court may consider the question
whether an amendment not expressly
prohibited by the constitution itself can
validly be adopted, it is submitted that
there Is nothing in the nature of the 18th
tprohibition) amendment which exposes
it to the charge of invalidity.
I'VE submit that the conception in
volved in the bill of complaint that an
amendment duly submitted by Congress
! on the vote of two-thirds of each House
and duly ratified by the Legislatures of
three fourths Of the STATES is still sub
ject to judicial review and may be held
for naught through judicial action by vir-
tue of process of implied restrictions
upon the amending power restrictions
| which thus set up by judicial decree
would be unalterable by any constitutional
process. is a conception of the most ex-
travagant character and opposed to the
fundamental principles Of our govern
| ment. No principle Of judicial action
can possibly be invoked for sustaining
such an authority.
THE truth is" the brief concludes
that there is nothing left but a ques-
ton of political policy with which this
court has no concern. II any restriction
upon the power of amendment could be
| implied there could be no implication in
the sense of rule Of law which would
Justify a judicial decree denying validity
| to this amendment"
Attorney-General Rice in his brief de-
clared the prohibition amendment to be
revolutionary and direct invasion of
! jurisdiction and power of the states.