The Alaska daily empire. [volume] (Juneau, Alaska) 1912-1926, 1920-06-07
both DRY LAWS
DECLARED TO Be
CONSTITUTIONAL
Highest Tribunal Uphold.
Prohibition Amendment
And Volstead Act
INJUNCTION Is REFUSED
Rhode Island, New Jersey S
Petitions To Stop En-
forcement Dismissed

WASHINGTON, June Both the
Federal Prohibition Amendment and
the VoIstead Enforcement Aca were
upheld as Constitutional by the
United States Supreme Court today.
Petition by the State Of Rhode Is
land to enjoin Federal Officials from
enforcing the prohibition law In that
state were dismissed. Injunction pro-
ceedines brought by the State Of
New Jersey to prevent enforcement
also was dismissed.
The vote of the Court on the de-
cision was not announced but 1t is
known that at least Associate Justice
Joseph McKenna dissented.
The opinions, read by Associate
Justice Willis Van Devanter, were
very brief. setting forth only the
Courts conclusions. Chief Edward
Douglas White rendered supple
mental opinion eoncurring, but go
ing more fully into details.
Validity of the prohibition amend
ment and portions of the enforce
ment act also were involved in
seven separate proceedings before the
Supreme Court Two of these were
original suits brought by Rhode IS
land and New Jersey as sovereign
states to enjoin enforcement In their
jurisdictions upon the grounds tEat
both enactments were unconstitution-
al and the other cases were direct
appeals from lower court DEGREES.
Consideration Expected
Steps to institute the suits were
instituted Immediately after tho am
endments became effective cn jan
uary 16 and on motion of counsel
their consideration was expedited.
In both the New Jersey and Rhode
Island suits the validity of the
Eighteenth Amendment was attacked,
but the New Jersey case alleged ita.
even if the amendment were valid,
the enforcement act was unconstitu-
tional because it had not been con
Cured in Gy New Jersey unie the
provisions given in the amendment
giving the federal and state gov
ernments concurrent powers 10 en-
force prohibition. New Jerse7 also
,:onienGed that if the eniite o'i.rce
iaent act were not uncOna ! at. ono |.
the portions of it limiting the alcohol
ic contents of beverages to less than
one half of one per cent and relat-
ing to the dispensing of liquors for
medicinal purposes were invalid.
Cases In Court On Appeal
The cases reaching the court on
appeals were those of the Kentucky
Distilleries and Warehouse Company
Christian Fiegenspan, Newark. n,
j. brewer, the st. Louis Brewing AS
sociation and George C. Dempsey, a
Wholesale liquor dealer of Boston
Mass who lost injunction proceed
ings in the lower courts. The other
case in the court was on apepal by
the government for decision ol
Federal Judge Geiger enjoining fed
eral officials from interfering will
the Manitowoc Products Compan,
Wisconsin corporation in the manu-
featuring of beer containing 2.5 pei
cent alcohol
In all the cases an general attaci
on the amendment was made OF
ground that 1t was revolutionary ant
constituted legislation in the guist
of constitutional amendment dc
signed to regulate the private habit
of individuals; that it interfered will
the states police powers; that i
was invalid because adopted by tw
thirds of the members of Congress
present when the vote was takcl
and not by two thirds OF the member
ship and that the amendment was no
ratified by three fourths OF tn
states owing to provisions in man
state constitutions requiring that an
endments be submitted to refer
endum.