Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1920-06-08
VETS LAST STAND
TURNED into ROUT.
BY HIGH TRIBUNAL
Constitutionality of Vol
stead Act and 18th
Amendment Upheld.
NO HOPE FOR THIRSTY
IN OPINION Of JUDGES
Verdict Unanimous on Princi-
pal Question, With Minor
Dissension.
LIBERALS DECISIYELY BEATEN
Concurrent Power Docs Not Re-
serve Independent Action
to States.
LIBERALS DECIsIvELY BEATE,
Concurrent Power Does Not Re-
serve Independent Action
to States.
iBy univcrsal scryiocl

WASHINGTON. June 7.-Boozc is
dead.
The last vcstigc OF hope for l,s
resurrection and restoration TO a
place among the Institutions OF So
ctety through the powers of the
courts IS gone.
The piping times OF prohibition
are made permanent by the decision
OF the United States Supreme Court
today sustaining the cons,itutional-
ity of the eighteenth amendment
and tho Nolstead enforcement ac;
against all attacks.
The courts opinion is regarded as
sweeping aside every contention OF
those wishing TO liberaiizc the dry"
ban.
The decision was unanimous on the
principal questions at issue. though
Associate Justices Mckcnna and Clark
disscnted In part,
Associate .. JdEtiee McReynoIds.
while not dissenting from the courts
decisions, reserved his opinion. Ills
| conclusions. no said. were confined
TO tho fact that It is Impossible to
say what construction should be
given TO the eighteenth amendment.
~ multitude OF questions will arise
and l prefer TO remain free when
they arise"
White Concura In Opinion.
Chief Justice White concurrcd in
tho opinion, but expressed regret"
that the court has deemed Il proper
10 state only ultimate conclusions
without an exposition OF the reason
Ing by which they have been reached.
In a supplemental opinion. the chief
justice went into "an exposition o:
I the reasoning"
/ The opinion OF the court was cx-
traordinarily brief In view Of the
Importance OF the issues involved.
being confined TO the conclusions
reached. II was rendered by Asso-
ciate Justice Van Devanter. In ef-
feet the court held:
]. That the eighteenth amendment
was adopted in a legal manner and is
In every way valid
2. That prohibition applies TO the
distribution and sale of Intoxicating
liquors manufactured prior 10 the
adoption of the eighteenth amend
ment, as well as TO the production
and consumption of liquors subsc-
quent to that time.
3. That the words Concurrent
power" which occur In the second
section OF the eighteenth amendment
. do not reserve to tho States any
rights equal to that OF the Federal
government in the enforcement of
tho constitutional prohibition
4. From this Interpretation OF
"concurrent power" all State stat
: utes granting the right to manufac-
ture light wines and beers are in
validate.
In Congress to say what is and what
is not an intoxicating liquor. thus CIV
O. ing Congress sole power to repeal or
amend the Volstead act, which limits
tho alcoholic contents of beverages
to less than one-half OF 1 per cent.
McI<ennns Opinion Sharp.
Associate Justice Mckenna's opin-
Ion, dissenting in part from the courts
decision. at times was sharp In sar-
casm and vigor, particularly in his
terse exposition of the legal aspects
of the seven cases involving injunc-
tions against tho Volstead act. on
which tho decision is based
He asserted. in substance. that tho
Interpretation placed on the words
f"concurrent power" as applied TO
Federal and State action in suppress
ing the liquor traffic, was something
now in law and unknown to logic"
The decision, he added. will have the
practical effect of destroying what re-
mains of States rights wherever they
conflict with Fcdeyai statutes.
Associate Justice Clark also ex-
pressed doubt regarding the interpre-
tation placed by the court on the con
current power" phase.
Immediately after the reading of
the opinions attorneys for the liouor
interests announced that they would
prepare a petition for n rehearing of
the cases. The court granted them
tho right to file such a petition.
In rendering. It's decision the court
dismissed petitions filed by tho State
Of Rhode Island to enjoin Federal
officials from enforcing prohibition in
that State. Injunction PROCEEDINGS
wrought by Now Jersey to prevent en-
forcement of prohibition within that
stete also were dismissed.
Injunctions restraining prohibition
Continued on Third Page-l \ --.si