The evening herald. (Klamath Falls, Or.) 1906-1942, 1920-06-07
DRY LAWS ARE
UPHELD BY
SUPREME COURT

WASHINGTON. June Both the
federal prohibition amendments and
the enforcement act passed by con-
gress were held constitutional today
by the supreme court. The court dis
missed petitions for various intunc-
tiops. aiming at having federal Off
cials enioined from enforcing prohibi-
tion In several states.
Associate Justice vandevan,er rem
dered the opinion. The courts opip-
ion is very short. setting forth only
the courts conclusions. Chief JUS
tio~ White rendered a supplemental
opinion eoncurring. bu, going more
fully into the issues inv lved Justice
McReynoids, While not dissenting.
said he confined his conclusions TO
the fact that II is impossible to s.y
what construction should be given
the amendment.
a multitude OF questions will
arise he said. "and I prefer to re-
main free when they arise"
Justice McKenns, In stili another
opinion said: The court declares It's
conclusic ms only without giving the
reasons for them. must 1T least
excuse, u ! cannot justify my dis
sent
Validity OF the prohibition amend
ment and portions OF the enforcement
act was involved in seven separate
proceedings before the supreme
court. Two OF these were original
suits brought by Rhode Island and
New Jersey as sovereign states TO
enjoin enforcement In their 1uris-
dictions upon the grounds that both
enactments were unconstitutional.
The other cases were direct appeals
from lower court DEGREES.
Z Steps TO institute the suits were
taken Immediately after the amend
ment became effective on January
l6 and on motion OF counsel their
consideration was expedited.
! In both the Rhode Island and New
Jersey suits the validity OF the eigh-
teenth amendment was attacked. but
the New Jersey case also alleged that
even II the amendment were valid,
the enforcement act was unconstitu-
tional because II had not been con-
Cured In by New Jersey under provi-
sions OF the amendment giving the
federal and state governments con-
current power TO enforce prohibition.
New Jersey also contended that IL
the entire enforcement act were not
unconstitutional. the portions OF II
limiting the alcoholic content Of bev-
erages to less than one-half OF one
per cent and relating to the disDens-
ing OF liquors for medicinal purposes
were invalid.
The cases reaching the court on
appeals were those OF the Kentucky
.Distilleries and Warehouse company;
Christian Feigenspan, a Newark, ".
j., brewer, the st. Louis Brewing as
sociation and George C.. Dempsey, a
wholesale liquor dealer of Boston,
Mass. who lost Injunction proceed
ings in the lower court. The other
case before the court was an appeal
by the government from a decision OF
Federal Judge Geiger enjoining fed
eral officials from interfering with
the ManitowOc Products company, a
Wisconsin corporation, in the manu-
facture Of beer containing 2.5 per
cent alcohol.
In all the cases a general attack On
the amendment was made on ground
that 1t was revolutionary and consti-
tuted legislation in the guise Of a.
constitutional amendment designed
to regulate the private habits of In
dividuals; that II interfered with the
states' police powers; that II was In
valid because adopted by twO-thirds
of the members OF congress present
when the vote was taken and not by
two-thirds Of the membership and
that the amendment was not ratified