Evening star., 1920-01-16
HIGHEST COURT HAS
NAILS YET TO PUT
|NJ.B.'S COFFIN
Decisions to Come in Ohio
and Rhode Island
Situations.

AIthoueb the eighteenth amend
ment to the Constitution OF the Onited
States. prohibiting manufacture, sale,
, TRANSPORTATION. importation or expor-
tation of Intoxicating liquors within,
| into or from the United States or any
| of it's possessions becomes effective
a t the stroke of II o'clock tonlght. tne
question of constitutionality of led
eral prohibition will not be ofhcially
decided until the Supreme Court of
! the United States has passed on the
| last case before it touching on the
| question.
| Thus, though the prohibition amend
| ment goes into effect at midnight to-
night, and the prohibition enforce
| ment law begins to function one min
| ute thereafter, should the Supreme
| Court uphold the contention OF the
| state of Rhode Island, or, failing that.
! should the tribunal affirm the finding
| of the Ohio supreme court as to le-
| gality of that states ratification of
! the amendment, the entire prohibition
program would be upset, and a more
! or less prolonged wet" season would
| result.
Rhode Islands Contention.
The contention of the state of Rhode
Island, in effect, is that the prohibition
amendment is outside the realm Of con-
| stitutional changes that are permis
| Sible under our form of government,
| and. therefore, that the amendment as
we'll as the prohibition enforcement
law is null and void.
While the decree of the Supreme
Court would relate merely to the state
of Rhode Island, since a constitutional
amendment is involved the effect
would be to lift the ban wherever state
prohibition laws are not in force.
! The eighteenth amendment will de-
stroy the authority of states, Rhode
Island holds. and the Union being
found indissoluble in 1865. she now
wishes to know if the states are inde-
structible.
| Situation in Ohio.
| If the decision of the Supreme Court
of the United States is against the con-
tentions of Rhode Island, the tribunal
| or not the people of Ohio have the
right to establish the method whereby
constitutional amendments shall be rati-
/ fed in that state.
! The constitution of Ohio provides for
ratification by a referendum of the
qualified voters of the state, and the
! Ohio supreme court has upheld the
legality and constitutionality of that
provision. The prohibition amendment,
however, was ratified by the state leg
| islature, and the ratification later was
repudiated by a referendum of the
voters.
Should the Supreme Court of the
United States uphold the Ohio supreme
court in its decision the legislative rati-
fcation will be nullified and Ohio will
Necessarily be removed from the list of
| thirty-SiX states ratifying, upon which
was based the proclamation of the Sec
retary of State fixing January Is, 1920,
as the effective date of the amendment
Would Open Question of Date.
/ This would open the question as to
the date of ratification, and the neces-
| Sity of the Secretary of State issuing
another proclamation that would de-
! lay the operation until January 16,
1921, or Indefinitely. The prohibition
f, lists declare that a proclamation is un-
necessary, and that the amendment
becomes effective one year from the
dag on which the required three
fourths of the states ratified.
Rhode Island having refused to
ratify the amendment, eleven states
must override the action of their
legislatures by referendum vote
This can only be done if the Supreme
fifteen states whose constitutions pro-
question to the people for a final de-
ciSion.
A majority of the people of New
Jersey registered their unmistakab1e
disapproval of prohibition by the elec-
ton of Gov. Edwards. a superwet
candidate Gov. Smith of New York
has asked the Legislature of that state
to revoke the action of ratification
Cows. Ritchie of Maryland and Davis o
Virginia have both recently showr
some concern over national prohibi
ton. and many other governors are
expected to follow.