New-York tribune., 1920-03-10
VETS to Finish
Supreme Court
Cases To-day
pleas of Massachusetts and
Rhode Island Completed;
kentucky Attacks Amend
.ment as Revolutionary
Constitution in Peril
Prohibitions Legality Is
Assailcd on Ground That
referendum Was Ignored

WASHINGTON, March 9.-Presenta-
49,, ,s arguments in cases from Rhode
,.,srd and Massachusetts, attacking the
~.,;sitv of the prohibition amendment
;. me Constitution was concluded to-
,.r in the Supreme Court. The case
from Kentucky will be disposed of to-
arrow. after which the question will
l. ,.f. TO the nations highest tribunal
for declsion.
rounsel for those attacking the
.m.ndment continued to-day to argue
.A.. il was revolutionary and an inva
SON of states rights.
ayou are now coming to fork in the
,osd. one leading to the power of
.nendment and the other back to the
constitution" Levy Mayer, of Chicago,
IA the court in opening for the Ken
.s.tv con,plainants. THE very propo-
s;t;on is staggering. There is no diff
ference if we discuss whisky, tobacco
~ cotton. | rise above the question
,bat this deals with whisky and dwell
", she principle involved-can this Con-
st;tution be uprooted?
Question Exceeds Prohibition
@The question is more than prohibi
tion. Police power is synonymous with
the sovereignty of the state. Remove
.be police power, and no state will
exist"
Nr. Mayer denied that the amend
msnt had been ratified properly in
view of referendum provisions in nu-
rsrous state constitutions requiring
surh proposals to be submitted to the
voters.
These contentious were denied by So
licitor General King and Assistant At
,orney General Frierson, who argued
the amendment was properly adopted
bv Congress and had been ratified by
three -fourths OF the states. The So
Hcjtor General also said the amend
ment did not interfere with the func-
tjons Of the states, but gave to the
Federal government power to act with
The states in enforcing prohibition and
resulted from general demand upon
Congress to assist dry" states n en-
forcing prohi5ition laws.
Attorney General Rice of Rhode Island
concluded the argument in the Rhode
Island case.
Contentious of Attorney General
Rice that amendments to the Cons titu
ton can be made only to correct error,
and that the Eighteenth Amendment
breaks down the Limitations imposed in
the Federal Constitution were denied
BY the Solicitor General. Mr.. King re
viewed the history Of the Constitu-
tional Convention 10 show that the
irsmers coNtem plated future changes
and that their IDEAS of amendm ents
we're "bro&d and sweeping"
The Soiicito. General argued ira.
vhcn en- amendment Wa made it was
as mmuch part O. the Constitution as
iir had been written there originally.
Rhcde Island. ne said, was among the
states that agreed 10 the provisions N
the Constitution relative TO the aJop-
iion OF amendments, and therefore tnc
Eighteenth Amendment applies TO It
as well as the other states.
More Power to Government
This amendment he continued,
does not interfere with the functions
Of the states, but simply vests in the
Federal government power which it
previously did not have"
In rebuttal Attorney General Rice
declared the Eighteenth Amendments
amended tho constitutions Of all the
states. bat did not amend the Nstgict-
ed powers OF thc United States. whose
Constitution itrelf was limited grant
Of power
The states" he continued. "have
been regarded as indestructlble. This
is the beginning of the destruction of
states, the beginning Of the taking
away and the deprivation OF the people
Of the right to rule themselves and
regulate the internal affairs of the
states"