Capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1919-1980, 1920-06-07

since 1919 was poured into X
the sewer today. +
X
s**% = y 4 y \ = = < = \:
Washington. June Both the fed
aral prohibition amendment and the
enforcement act passed by congress
we're held constitutional today by the
supreme court.
The court dismissed petitions filed
by the state of Rhode Island to have
federal officials enjoined from en-
forcing prohibition in that state.
The cour also dismissed injunction
proceedings brought by the state of
New Jersey to prevent enforcement of
prshibition within that state.
Injunctions Dismissed,
Injunctions restraining prohibition
officials from interfering with the
Manitowoc Products company, Wis
consln corporation, in the manufacture
Of beer containing more than half of
one per cent of alcohol were dissolved
by the court.
The court upheld federal court de-
crees dismissing proceedings brought
to enioin the prohibition amendment
from being enforced against Christian
Feigenspan, brewer of Newark, N. ].
Federal court decrees denying sim
liar injunctions sought by the ST.
Louis Brewing association likewise
were affirmed.
Courts Opinion Short.
The courts opinion was very short,
setting forth only the courts conclus-
ions. Chief Justice White rendered a
supplemental opinion concurring in
the one rendered by Justice Van De-
vanter, but going more fully into the
issues involved.
Federal court decrees dismissing in
junction proceedings instituted by the
Kentucky Dlstilleries & Warehouse
company at Louisville, KY, to enjoin
enforcement of the act against it were
sustained by the court. Injunetions
sought by George c. Dempsey, Lvs-
GA, Mass, wholesale liquor dealer to
restrain enforcement Of the enforcu-
ment act against him were also denied
by the court
Distillers See Finis.
Chicago June Levy Mayer of
Chicago who argued the case for the
distillers in the supreme court, said
on hearing of the decision:
81 advanced every possible legal ar
gument. The avenue of the courts is
now exhausted"
The court held as follows:
Opinion is Cited
1.-THE adoption of both houses
Of congress each by two thirds vote
OF joint resolution proposing an
amendment to the constitution suffi-
Ilciently shows that the proposal was
deemed necessary by all who voted
Tor 1t. An express declaration that
they regarded 1t as necessary is not
essential. None Of the resolutio rs
whereby prior amendments were pro-
posed contained such a declaration.
THE two thirds vot Elm each
mouse which is required in propos-
ing an amendment is a vote of two
'hlrds OF the members present-as-
suming the presence of a quorum
and not vote of two thirds of the
entire membership present and alb
sent. Missouri Pacific railway COM
pany VS. Kansas, 24S. U. S. 276."
The referendum provisions of
stale constitutions and statutes, can
NOT be applied, consistently with the
constitution Of the United States in
'he ratification or rejection of amend
Hiehts to it, Hawke VS. Smith, U. s.,
ueelded June /, 1920.
4-The prohibition of manufac-
'ore and sale, transportation, impor
@'ioh and expectation of intoxicating
'asors for beverage purposes as en-
oouied in the 18th amendment, fs
~ithin the powed to amend reserved
article V Of the constitution.
o-rhat amendment by lawful pro
posal and ratification has become a
par. OF the constitution, and must sbe
.sspected and given effect the same
ment.
THE first section of the amend
ln,sn'-the ~ one embodying the prohi-
loh--is operative throughout the
sa'ire territorial limits of the United
s'a'es' binds all legislative bodies
oufus public officers and individ-
S sals within those limits. and of its
-" iorce invalidates any ieg,s.ative
l,.whether ls.s, by congress. by a state
hIs hI'ature, or by territorial assem-
which authorizes or sanctions
e' =. the section prohibits.
The second section Of the
o4eiiument-the one declaring the
hs.. heress and the several srares shall
go e concurrent power to enforce this
doas Dy appropriate legislation
-, not enable congress or the sew
NJ. ~, states to defeat or thwart the
sa.onloitlon. but only to enforce it by
@ppropriate means
IN - ,sLrhe words concurrent power
~ 'n's section do not mean joint pow
rns ~ " require that legislation there
shsn oy congress. to be effective.
~ ps approved or sanctioned by
A. several states or any of them; nor
forea ey mean that the power to en-
ana :, : divided between the congress
wh,.s M .he several states along the lines
ana separate or distinguish foreign
aa,. srstate commerce from intra-
's-Th