The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1920-06-03

NJoT judg~s the Federal Supreme Court 1< but those who comment, make complex matter out of decision which is based simple and familiar prnc- pies.
 they provided changes and designated the man in which those changes might be made. An amendment being valid when ratified the legislatures of hreeourhs of the states by conven- tons in the several states, as the case might be-
 But exception made with respect to changes. Anything might be changed anything might be added except that state deprived of it's representation by two senators
 The regulating does not from the people the individual states but from the Federal This the of the opinion of the cour and the opinion is of in accordance with plain and usual practice
 There could be government government not in its and could not be supreme might obey disobey Federal laws at its will
 argued that the Eighteenth Amendment adopted under that in the state of Oho at least the ega the will of the people, that cording o the will of the majority.
 governing body did, will, act according the will of the majority The majority will is sell dom completely legislature acts according to it's discretion.
 way which the will of the people can asceraned with certainty with respect to The must be submitted to ballot.
 There remedy, mooted matter, like the prohbi ton amendment in selecting of courage principles and convictions suggested by the New York Times and other newspapers Such divide according to their opinions, and those each opinion assert that they will of the people.
 The legal gaeways through which prohibition may ushered off the map reduced in number.
 hope that the Federal judges may declare the unconstitutional This requires revolution in of the country. Until it has been seriously suggested that the Supreme court has the to set aside legally adopted amendment to the constitution and which the court does being conflict with the constitution the beginning garded usurpaton of power Some good lawyers and good udgs regard to this day usurpaton though years custom have permitted it.
 The better reasoning that the judges will not adopt revolutionary. There perhaps another oophoe destruction of the amendment This opportunity is the concurrent The Federal government and the states given concurren jurisdiction for the execution of aws>o make the amendment effective The court is asked to find that the word concurrent that state make egazng the intoxcans and that the Federal will make against the sale of ntoxicants that these will be authority to the extent that the Federal government cannot enforce it's law.
 This requires such drastic departures from nal definitions that it must not be expected
 Those who oppose prohibition have but fairly certain road to of strength They agitae for referendum amendment to the constitution This being gained amending the constitution, with the exception of changing the senatorial representation of the states submitted
 In pursuing by-passes law, mprob- ably out that the proponents of alcohol have been vast ing time to their AS the months go muudes getting of the habit of drinking when at last is taken to the prohibition question they will to be neutral, will be arrayed the dry side