Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1920-06-03
Collateral to the Real Issue

THE Supreme Court still hangs fire OH
1 handing down decision in the pend
ing cases arising under the prohibition
amendment. and as the court goes into its
summer vacation on June g. some anxiety
is felt by both "dryS'' and vets that the
interesting questions involved may not be
decided at this time. True. an adverse de-
cision handed down in the case from
Ohio. involving the right of submission to
Il popular referendum of the resolution Of
ratification by the Legislature of that State,
under 4 clause in the State Constitution
providing for referendum to Il popular vote
of legislative acts; but this decision was
only remotely collateral. having no bearing
whatever on the principal questions in
VOWED in the contest before the court
In this case the court held that Federal
constitutional amendments cannot be sub
mitted to popular vote for ratification by
States having referendum provisions in their
Constitutions. the method of ratifying being
national power specifically granted by
the Federal Constitution. with authority
vested in Congress To designate whether
ratification should be by the Legislatures
or conventions called for that purpose. In
cidcntaly, This decision disposcs of similar
contests over ratification OF the Federal
suffrage amendment by the Legislatures OF
States which have referendum clauses in
their Constitutions. the same principle
is applicable to both.
Should the court enter upon its summer
vacation without deciding the main ques-
lions involved, it will leave the coming
conventions OF both political parties up in
the air so to speak. as to the respective
attitudes they should take toward the par
tcuar phase OF enforcement which in
Wolves the disputed question of State au-
thority under the clause OF the amendment
comforting concurrent power" upon Fed
eral and State governments to enact legis-
lation TO give effect to the constitutional
prohibition against 1.-THE manufacture and
sale OF intoxicating liquors as Il beverage"
Under this clause. several states have
enacted enforcement legislation more lib
eral in defining the meaning OF ''intoXicat-
ing liquors" than is contained in the Vol
stead act, thus bringing about a conflict
OF authority between State and Federal
governments in the matter of enforcement
within the respective jurisdictions of such
States. No such division of power between
the Federal and State governments has ever
before been attempted. Uphodcrs of the
doctrine OF the reserved rights of the States
insist that il such concurrent clause in
the amendment means anything. il cannot
mean. as contended by the Federal gov
eminent. that the entire power TO legislate
for enforcement should rest in the Federal
government or that the authority OF the
States should be subsidiary to or subject
to that of the Federal government. or
should be exercised only by suffcrancc
where the Federal government failed TO
act.
The chief controversy, therefore. centers
around the meaning OF the words con
current power as presented in the case
brought by the State of Rhode Island, and
it is upon the outcome Of this particular
sui, that the VETS and incidentally the
friends Of State rights, base their cXpec
tations Of victory when the court finally
renders its decision in the pending cases.