New-York tribune., 1920-03-09
Rhode Island
Fights Dry Law
In Hligi, Court
State Attorney General De-
clares 18th Amendment
Strips American People
Of Inalie1lablc Rights
No Authority, He Holds
Justices Frequently Inter-
rupt Speaker; Hughes
and Root to File Briefs

! WASHINGTON, March s.-Rhode
Islands legal attack on the prohibition
amendment to the Federal Constitution
was argued in the Supreme Court to-
day. 1t was assailed by the complain
ant as revolutionary and an invasion
OF states rights and defended by the
government as legitimate addition to
the nations basic law over which the
court held no jurisdiction.
Herbert A. Rice, Attorney General Of
Rhode Island. opened for the opposition
and William l.. Frierson, Assistant At
torney General of the United States.
replied for the government. Other ar
guments will be heard tomorrow, as
we'll as appeals from Kentucky and
Massachusetts, involving the same
questions.
constitutional Revolt"
Mr.. Rice charged there was in prog
ress "consti.utional revolution
through amendments.
II see more danger in the doctrine
urged by the government than any doc
trine urged by the demagogues
during the World War;" he said. "The
rights assured the people under the
Tenth Amendment were never intended
to be taken away"
Mr.. Rice argued that the prohibition
amendment resulted from miscon-
ception of the law by Congress and
that the Federal government had no
authority to make such a change in
the Constitution as toe amendment pro-
vidcs. Declaring that amendment"
means correction. he said the terms
of the prohibition amendment arc
clearly outside the purvicw Of the Con-
stitution.
What about the Thirteenth Amend
ment aholishiag slavery?" inquired
Justice Pitncy.
Ahat was a compromise amendment
and corrected en error in the Consti-
tution," answered Mr. Rice.
Justice Brandeis asked what power
could bring about the conditions i'm
posed by the. Eighteenth Amendment.
Quizzed by Justices
There is no power in the United
States Constltution to make such a
Change unless it could be done by
unanimous consent of the states and
the people of the United States" Mr..
Rice said. There is no power and
taere never was intended to be sucl.
power fer encroachment by the Fed
erai government upon the powers of
the states
Wasn't slavery supported by the
police power of the states ?" Justice
McReynolds asked.
Yes" replied Mr. Rice, "but it was
police power 10 regulate"
Mr.. Rice told the court that the
Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth
amendments were written into the
Constitution by force" and not with
she voluntary assent cf the Southern
states.
Assistant Attorney General Frierson
argued there was nothing Revolutionary
IN the adoption Of an amendment that
lays down Fundamental rule of law"
that applies t. all states.
he case does involve the question
as to whether state can come into q!
Federal court and enioin the enforce
ment CT g criminal law on the ground
the law is unconstitutional" he added.
Permission for Briefs
The court granted permission for the
11lHR ol Dfle1S ty ChaficS r.. hughes
on behalf Of twenty-four states and by
Wayne B. Wheeler, general counsel for
the Anti-Saloon League of America,
supporting the amendment, and by
El;hu Roo in opposition to the amend
ment, on beha Of the United States
Brewers Association.
The Root brief asked that the amend
ment be declared invalid and that the
court hold the enforcement act unen-
iorcibie In Rhode Island.
Mr.. Root in his brief contcndcd that
the so-caled Eighteenth Amendment, as
mere legislation, was not within the
thority vested in Congress and the
legislatures of thrce -fourths Of tho
states under the Federal Constitution;
that Article v Of the Constitution did
not authorize any amendment which
directly or in principle tended to I'M
pair md destroy the reserved police or
governmental powers Of the several
states aud their right to local sclf-eov-
ernmont: that two-thirds of Congress
did not deem the amendment ncces-
sary, and that the amendment had net
been ratified by three-fourths Of the
states.