South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1920-05-23
COUNTRY AWAITS
j. S. RULING ON
PROHIBITION LAW
Politicians Interested in SUI
preme Court Action on
VOlstead Law.
By LOUIS LUDLOW.

The eyes Of the country. figuratively
speaking. are on the United States
supreme court, in anticipation OF the
decision that is expected on the con-
stitutiOnality OF the national prOhi-
b'tion amendment and the Nolstead
law for the enforcement Of that
amendment The politicians. cspec-
ially. are watching the court with
alert eyes, for political consequences
OF the largest import hang on the
courts decision. Various political
moves are being planned 90 con-
form 10 the various shades Of con-
struction which IL is POSSIBLE for the
court 20 place on the questions be-
fore II.
Five Cases I'm Court
COncretely speaking. there are five
cases before the highest tribunal on
which decisions are TO be- rendered.
Summarized, these are as follows:
Rhode Island case-Rhode Island
contends that when she entered the
Union. she did so with reservations, /
among them "A reservation OF police
powers. The 18th. or national pro-
hibition. amendment is attacked as
violation Of the compact that
created Rhode Island a state.
Ftegenspan, or EIinu Root case
This case attacks the NOlstead law
and challenges the power Of con
gress 10 define Intoxicating liquors.
claiming that In fixing the standard
OF alcoholic content at one-half Of
one percent congress, in fact. ex-
tended the national prohibition
amendment. which says expressly
Intoxicating liquor II also is con-
tended i'm this case that the term
concurrent means the right Of
states 10 concur in any federal en-
fOTCement measure before such
r'easure becomes effective as TO each
state. The cOnstitutiOnality Of the
18th amendment also is attacked.
This IS the case in which EHhu
Root has been employed as attor-
ney by the beer interests
Distillcrics Case.
Distillcries case-This case attacks I
the federal prohibition amendment |
ON the alleged ground that it was
not properly presented by congress !
nor properly adopted by the states /
10 maintains that the referendum Is (
q part OF the ratifying machinery or Z
ia states and that the verdict Of the /
referendum must govern in states I
where the referendum on state laws
is in force. It also is commended in /
this case that the federal amend /
mcnt takes property without COM /
fict with the constitution itself
Ohio referendum case-This case 1
involves the legality of the referen- /
Gum on the federal amendment in /
the state Of Ohio. As Ohio was the /
9th state 20 ratify. which made /
ratification complete. this case is Of /
special interest.
Wisconsin case-This case is along I
the same lines as the Rhode Island /
EarrH =
Wisconsin to pass "a bill legalzing !
four percent beer.
What Court Could Do.
As the best informed lawyers see /
it, there are four things the court |
could do. as follows.
1t could knock ont the federal |
prohibition amendment completely /
on the ground that it is "A violation /
OF the overs of the states and con
tscates property without cOmpensa- /
IL n. This is not regarded as likely /
to happen.
2-It could sustain the amend !
ment which is proba BILE.
st could knock out the Vol
stead law on any one of the several /
Grounds. including the rather novel /
contention that 70 perpetratcs cruel /
aao inhuman punishment. i'm viola /
ton of the fifth amendment
4-It could sustain the Nolstead /
law
Consequences Important
The consequences that will follow /
any construction the court may
place on the questions before it win /
ne immediate and important The /
main hoTe Of the "wets"~is i'm the /
courts construction as TO what the I
word concurrent means If it is |
Interpreted TO mean that each state /
has a right TO concur or 20 fix its I
own standard. then four percent 4
beer would he put on sale AT once /
I'm New Jersey and Wisconsin. which ]
have fixed that standard by state !
statute. and other percentages i'm /
other states as the legislatures may /
prescribe.
If the NOIstead law is knocked |
out. breweries over the country viii /
start to manufacture and put on the |
market beer containing 2.T5 percent /
OF alcohol, that percentage being
commonly agreed on among them
as the proper percentage i'm view OF
the fact that IL was fixed as the
standard under the food administra-
ton. Some breweries of course. will
manufacture beer Of higher alcoholic
content 20 meet the requirements on
state laws
II the Nolstead law should be up
held then the liquor question Will
be Trecipitated with a bang into
this years elections because the SUI
preme court will have established by
its decjsi>'- the right and power of
congress 10 interpret the national
amendment. In other words. if the
present congress has authority 20
prescribe one-half Of one percent as
the alcoholic content of beer the
next congress would have exactly
the same authority TO prescribe four
percent as the alcoholic content or
any other percent it might care 20
write into the law. If the VOlstead
law is held legal, many candidates
for congress will come out on beer
and wine platforms and there Will
be a Titanic struggle between wet
and dry" interests 10 capture the
control OF congress in November
Because OF the tremendous politi-
cal consequences that hang on the
courts action. il would not surprise
well-infOrmed PERSONS If the deci-
slons should be deferred until after
the national political conventions
AMERICAN GOLFERS OFF