Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1920-06-10
18TH AMENDMENT
IS CONSTITUTIONAL
Also the VOlstead Enforcement
Act-U. S. Supreme Court
SO Decides in a Unanimous
Decision

w June Z. tBN the Associated
Press)-The> prohibition amendment and
the enforcement act were held constitu-
tional by the Supreme Court to-day in a
unanimous decision.
While attorneys for the interests at
lacking the two measures we're granted
permission to file motions for re-hearings,
inc decision was regarded generally as
striking death blow to the hopes of the
vets.
The courts opinion, rendered by Justice
van Devanter, held that the amendment
not only came within the amending pow
err conferred by the federal constitution,
but was lawfully proposed and was the
law of the land. While recognizing that
Congress has limitations in respect to the
enforcement of lava regarding beverages,
the court held those limits were not tran
scended in the enactment of the enforce
ment act restricting alcoholic content of
intoxicants to one-half Of one per cent.
concurrent power granted by the
amendment to federal and State govern
ments to enforce prohibition, the court
further held. does not enable Congress
or the several States to defeat or thwart
prohibition but only to enforce it by ap-
proprate means
THE COURTS DECISION
The court held as follows:
Il. The adoption by both ho" Of
Congress each by two-thirds VOC OF a
| joint resolution proposing an ar;e dn:ent
! to the constitution sufficiently shows
that the proposal was deemed necessary
by all who voted for it. An express
/ declaration that they regarded it as
necessary is not essential. None of the
! resolutions whereby prior amendments
were proposed contained such declara-
| ton.
"2. The two-tl,irds vote in each House
which is required in proposing an amend
ment is a. vote of two-thirds of the mem
bers notwithstanding the presence of
| a quorGm-and not q vote of two-thirds
of the entire membership present and alb
sent. missouri Pacific Railway versus
! Kansas, 4S L. S. 276).
! "3 The referendum provisions OF State
| constitutions and statutes. cannot be ap-
piled consistently with the constitution of
| the United States in the ratification or re-
| lection of amendments to it. (Hawke VS..
Smith,. S.-decided June |, 1920.
| - The prohibition of the manufacture,
sale Transportation, importation and eX-
portation of intoxicating liquors Tor
beverage purposes, as embodied in the
18th amendment. is within the power to
| amend reserved by Article V of the con-
stituton.
as. That amendment by lawful proposal
and ratification has become part OF the
constitution and must be respected and
! given effect the same as other provisions
of that instrument.
"s The first section of the amend
ment-the one embodying the prohibi-
tion--is operative throughout the en-
tire territorial limits of the united
| States. binds all Legislative bodies'
courts, public offices and individuals
within those limits. and of its own
force invaliiates any legislative act
whether by Congress, by a State legis-
lature or by territorial assembly
| which authorizes or sanctions what
| the section prohibits.
| at The second section of the
amendment-the one declaring the
| Congress and several States shall have
| concurrent power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation
| does not enable Congress or the sew
| eral States to defeat or thwart the
prohibition but only to enforce 1t by
appropriate means.
IS The words concurrent power
in that section do not mean joint
power. or require that legislation
hereunder by Congress. to he effec-
tive shall be approved or sanctioned
by the several States or any of them
nor do they mean that the power to
! enforce is divided between Congress
and the several States along the lines
which separate or distinguish foreign
ana interstate commerce from inter-
state affairs.
| 80 The power confided to Congress by
that section while not exclusive is ter
| ritorially co-extensive with that prohibit
ton Of the first section. embraces manu-
facture and other interstate transactions
as we'll as importation, expectation. and
interstate traffic. and is in nowise de-
pendent upon or affected by action or in
action on the part of several States or
any of them.
80 That power may he asserted
against the disposal for beverage pur-
poses of liquor manufactured before the
amendment became affective. yet as II
may be against subsequent manufacture
for those purposes. In either case it is
constitutional mandate or prohibition
that Is being enforced.
: III While recognizing that there are
limits beyond which Congress cannot &C
, in treating beverages as within its pow
err Of enforcement we think those limits
are not transcribed by the provision OF
the Volstead Act wherein liquors con
tanning as much as one half OF one pei
, cent of alcohol by volume and At fol
use for beverage purposes are treated
as within that power Oacob Ripper
VS.. Caffey. 251 L. S. 26i.'
While agreeing as to the validity OF the
amendment and enforcement act, Justice
McKenna and Clarke dissented from the
ma jority Interpretation of the concurrent
power of federal and State governments
to enforce prohibition Chief Justice White
held that the court should set forth the
reasoning for it's decision. He did this II
a supplemental opinion.
Justice McReynolds in brief state
, ment declared he was of the opinion tina
! 1t was impossible to say at this tim
: what construction should he given to tn
amendment.
J Regarding arguments to the effect tina
a State having constitutional referendum
provisions could not have been said t.
have ratified the amendment until 1t hat
been submitted to the voters, the cour
cited its opinion rendered last Monday II
the Ohio referendum cases In which 1t hell
that such referendum provisions do no
= apply to federal amendments.
e FARRAGUTS FLAGSHIP.
j. nrUv1 nUCUINNnAJD DTJDNET