The news scimitar. (Memphis, Tenn.) 1907-1926, 1920-01-27
Is PROHIBITION
ESTABLISHED FACT?
Important Questions Yet To
Be Determined by the
Supreme Court,

WASHINGTON. D. g.. IaH Al
though ;bc prohbiuou forces Of the
country have held ta.ir celebration
over the hlrl-fought t5,lory and are
nov turning JhciF attention 90 dry
propaganda Tor other lands there Is a
ieelihg, even among their leaders, that
Perhaps she celebration WAS ilttc
premature. There ara zi,l some very
Important questions which the United
states supreme court will be called
nnon 10 decide before 1t will hr def
nltely determined that nation wide pro
hbitton Is .,u established Rct
The fact thst the supreme court iu
It's decision upholdnE the NnlStc3d act.
based such decision solely upon the var
powers Of congress and even then di-
Nlded i've 10 four. has shaken the con-
ndence of some Of the pruhihitIonlsts
moro than any Of them Is willing 10
admit That Is very narrow margin,
too close Tor comfort as one Of tho
leaders Of the 'drys expresses a.
But there were Few among the attor-
neys for the vets who really CN-
pected the supreme court 90 knocl, out
wartime prohibition. at least that Is
what they ray now. 10 is believed
however, that with the problems which
viii be presented in the Rhode Island
and New Jersey cases and 10 "a lesser
extent in the Ohio case there ~ more
than an even chance the court will
Aoiu win the vets.
There are two main Issues 10 be pre-
sentod In those cases which VIII he
stressed by counsel for the autlproh-
bitiouistS. One Of these hinges upon
the use Of the word concurrent" the
description given in the constitutional
amendment Tor the power 10 be eXer-
cised BY state and nation in the en-
forcement Of prohibition. Lawyers for
The liquor forces insist that concurrent
means joint or equal in authority and
that thus the United States, under the
amendment, acquires no greater power
81 enforcement in each state than the
local authority ~ such state have UNI
uer their own state laws, Thus should
the state OF Rhode Island, for instance,
by legislative enactment fix the alec.
holic contents Of beverages which might
legally be sold there at or even 10
per cent the federal government under
The working Of the Eighteenth amend
ment would have no power TO prose
cute dealers selling beverages permits
klhle under the state law. II ~ further
argued that use Of the word concur
rent would neCesSitRte the federal gov.
srnment in prosecuting cases 10 make
the penalties conform to those pre-
hcTihed under state statutes,
This phase Of the case strikes al the
amendment and II that view Is sus-
tanned II may mean that New Jersey
and Rhode Island will be- the GASES In
tue 'bftat American Desert hut
there Is another issue which lawyers
aver strikes az that provision Of the
Nolstaad act fixing the alcoholic con-
tents Of beverages offered for sale al
rot more than one-haf OF one per cent.
The Eighteenth amendment says moth
tng about the prohibition OF alcoholic
beverages, the words used being Tn
ioXicaiing beverages" and II II held
that times without number the courts
nave held intuNication to he a question
Of fact to be determined in each case
In support Of this contention II IN
urged that beer with small alcoholic
content may be Intoxicating 10 some
persons, hut not to others, and that il
can easily be demonstrated that beer
carrying considerably more alcohol BY
volume than permissible under the Vol
stead act would not be intoxicating to
anyone.
Thus far the supreme court in the
several cases passed on has not ruled
ON these points and seemed almost TO
avoid them. The attorneys for the H.
uour men insist however, that they
constitute the cruN OF the matter and
must he determined one way or another
In the Rhode Island and New Jersey
cases.