Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1920-06-08
PRO AMENDMENT
IS HELD VAL ID
IN DECISION Of
SUPREME COURT
DRY Enforcement Act Is AISu
Declared Constitutional
the Decision Was IMAM
inouS in Both Cases.
DEATH BLOW STRUCK
TO HOPES OF VETS
Opinion, Rendered by Justice
Van Deyanter Is Sweep
ingi Amendment Lawfully
Proposed Now Is Law,


Washington, June (by the As
sociated Press, 1.-The prohibition
amendment and the enforcement
act were held constitutional by the
supreme court today in a unani-
nus decision.
While attorneys for the interests
attacking the two measures were
granted permission to file motions
FOR fehearings, the decision was re-
garded generally as striking a
death blow to the hopes of the
vets.
The courts opinion, rendered by
Justice Van Devanter, was sweep
ing. 1t held that the amendment
not only came within the amending
powers conferred by the federal
constitution, but was lawfully pro-
posed and now was law. While
recognizing congress has limtta-
tons as to the enforcement of laws
regarding beverages, the court held
those limits were not transcended
in the enactment of the enforce
ment act restricting alcoholic con-
tent of intoXicants to one-half of
one per cent.
states Acts InvaIidated.
While New York, New Jersey
and Wisconsin acts permitting
manufacture and sale of beverages
of more than one-half of one per
cent alcoholic content were not di-
rectly involved, the decision was
interpreted as invaIidating them.
/ The court said the first section of
the amendment of its own force
''invalidated any legislative act
whether by congress, by a state
legislature, or by a territorial as
sembly--which authorizes or sane.
tions what the section prohibits" ;"
Concurrent power granted by the
amendment to federal and state
governments to enforce prohibition
the court further held, docs not en-
able congress or the several states
to defeat or thwart prohibition but
only to enforce it by appropriate
means"
The decision was set forth in
eleven conclusions covering seven
proceedings. These proceedings in
cluded original suits brought hy
Rhode Island, directly attacking
the constitutionality of the amend
ment.
Conclusions of the Court.
81. The adoption by both houses
of congress each hv thirds
vote, of a joint resolution pronos-
ing an amendment to the constitu-
tion sufficiently shows that the
proposal was deemed necessary by
al i, acc
declaration that they regarded 1t
as necessary is not essential None
of the resolutions whereby prior
amendments were proposed con-
tanned such a declaration.
20. The two-thirds vote in each
house which is required in propos-
ing an amendment is a vote of two
thirds of the members present-as-
suming the presence of quorum
and not a vote of the twO-thirds of
the entire membership present and
absent. Missouri Pacific Railway
company VS.. Kansas, 24S, Z. s.
276.
49, The referendum provisions
of state constitutions and statutes,
cannot be applied, consistently with
the constitution of the United
States in the ratification or rejec-
ton of amendments to. Hawke VS..
smith,. S.-decided June l,
1920. f
- The prohibition of the man
ufacture, sale, transportation, i'm
portation and expectation of in
toxicating liquors for beverage
purposes, as embodied in the
- It,hn npt he within
the power to amend reserved by
article V of the constitution.
"5-That amendment by law
full proposal and ratification mas
become a part of the constitution,
and must be respected and given
effect the same as other provisions
of that instrument.
"6-The first section of the
amendment--the one embodylng
the prohibition--is operative
throughout the entire territorial
limits of the United states, binds
all legislative bodies courts, pubic
officers and individuals within
those limits, and of its own force
invalidates any legislative act
whether by congressi by state
legislature or by a territorial as
sembly-wbich authorizes or sane
tions what the section prohibits. >.
Can't Defeat Prohibition.
1.-THE second section of the
amendment--the one declaring
The congress and the several states
shall have concurrent power to en-
force this article by appropriate
legislation not enable con-
gress or the several states to defeat
or thwart the prohibition, but only
to enforce it by appropriate means.
"S-The words concurrent
mower in that section do not
mean joint power, or require that
legislation hereunder by congress
to be effective, shall be approved
or sanctioned by the several states
or any of them; nor do they mean
that the power to enforce it is di-
vided between congress and the
several states along the lines which
separate or distinguish foreign and
Continued on Page Twol