Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1920-06-07

it is constitutional.
The courts action means that the Vol
stead law prohibiting the sale OF any
beverage containing One-half or one per
cent or more Of alcohol must be enforced
in every state of the Union, regardless
of whether the state has ratified the
amendment
State laws providing higher alcoholic
content. such as have been enacted IN
New Jersey. Wisconsin and Rhode Is
land. are nulliied.
The decision dispels the hope Of the
brewing interests that the properties
could be used for the manufacture OF
light beers and wines and minimize the
losses due to national prohibition
AFTER THREE MONTHS
OF BITTER ATTACKS.
The courts decree, rendered after
three months of legal attacks on The law
bv the liouor interests and wet states, IS
a complete victory for the federal govern
ment and the prohibition forces.
II is so fsr-reaching that II settles
once and for all that national prohibition
viii stand unless the prohibition amend
ment should be removed from the con
sttution by action Of three -fourths OF
the states.
All the contentious made by the most
skfIlful lawyers Of the vets are swept
aside on the ground that it was legally
ratified and that the states in so doing
gave congress power to enact the Vol
stead law.
Unfolding the amendment the court
stated prohibition is a valid subject for
an addition to the constitution and that
. such action does not conflict with other
/, s@eicles Of that historic document.
The constitutionality of the Yolstead
J law was based on the general principle
laid. down By Chief Justice Marshall
more than 100 years ago that where state
laws conflict with federal statutes. the
federal laws are supreme.
BLANKET DECISION
ON SEVEN SUITS.
A blanket decision was recorded by
the court on seven suits.
These were brought by or appealed
from six states-Rhode Island, New
Jersey, Massachusetts,. Wisconsin, Mis-
souri, and Kentucky.
Rhode Island and New Jersey as
states Instituted proceedings in the
court to have the amendment declared
void and to enioin the enforcement OF
the Yolstead law within their limits
The appeals were on cases Instituted
in lower courts by Christian Feigeuspan,
q New Jersey brewing corporation
George G Dempsey. a Boston liquor
dealer: the St. Louis Brewing assocla-
ton. the Kentucky DlstilleTies and Ware
house Company, Louisville. and the Mani
towoe Prducts Company, Milwaukee.
The government won all but the NIL
waukee case in the lower courts and con-
secuentIy today's action affirms the judg-
%<snt In all the others below.
The Milwaukee decision, rendered by
Federal Judge Geiger. was reversed.
In the New Jersey and Rhode Island
state actions, the motion Of the federal
government to dismiss the cases were
granted.
The courts opinion took up all The
contentious of the wet forces IN detail
and then declared that there was no
legal foundation for them.
Chief Justice White said he regretted
that the court had not seen At to out
line the steps which led MP 10 its de-
Cision.
He indicated. however. that he was no;
dissenting from the opinion.
He said congress in the eighteenth
amendment should have defined intO6i-
eating liquors.
Justice vandevanter read the opinion
Of the court.
buebAtc -lLAehhd ArdN ti1oFut4h- :
opinion.
After pointing out the court was con-
cerned with seven cases involving the
validity Of the amendment and of certain
general features Of the /Tolstesd law
Justice Vandeventer announced the con
clUsions Of the court on the various
points raised
POINTS SET OUT IN
COURTS DECISION.
Following is the decision:
l. The adoption by houses Of con-
gress, each by a twO-thirds vote, Of q
Joint resolution proposing sn Amendment
TO the icOnstitutiOn sufficiently shows
that the proposal was deemed necessary
by all who voted for It. An express
declaration that they regarded It is
necessary is not essential. None Of the
resolutions whereby prior amendment
were proposed contained such a declara
riOn.
2 The two-thirds vote in each house
which is required in proposing an amend
ment is a vote of two-thirds Of the mem
bership present. assuming the presence
Of a qUorum-and not a vote Of two
thirds Of the entire membership, present
: and absent.
IS. The referendum provisions OF state
constitutions and statutes can not b'
applied consistently with the constitution
Continued on Page Nineteen-l