Evening star., 1920-01-12
JERSEY ANTEDRY
CASE DISMISSED
No Jurisdiction, Decision Of
Supreme Court-Rhode
Island Case Heard.

The Supreme Court of the United
States today denied permission for the
New Jersey Retail Liquor Dealers Asso-
citation to bring original proceedings in
the Supreme Court to test the constitu-
tionality of the national prohibition
amendment and enjoin its enforcement
in New Jersey The court held 1t had
no jurisdiction.
State Police Powers.
In seeking to bring the original
proceedings, the association alleged
that the prohibition amendment in
terfered with the state police pow
ers. and was a violation of the nth
amendment. prohibiting the taking Of
private property without just COM
pensation. Chief Justice White, in
disposing of the motion, however. ig-
rored these contentious and devoted
himself entirely to the question of
jurisdiction.
He said the court held that no right
existed by which a citizen of a state
could sue that state without it's con-
sent. In this instance the state of
New Jersey denied that permission.
Arguments on the motion of the
state of Rhode Island for permission
to institute original proceedings to
test the constitutionality of the fed
eral prohibition constitutional amend
ment and enjoin it's enforcement in
that state were heard today by the
Supreme Court.
Attorney General Herbert A. Rice
of Rhode, Island attacked the manner
in which the amendment was ratified
and contended that it was revolution
ary and invalid. Solicitor General
King argued that the Supreme Court
was without jurisdiction.
States Contention.
Replying to government contentious
that only a political question is in
volved, Attorney General Rice, in a
new brief filed today. said Rhode Is
land is only "see king to test judicially
the exercise of power assailed. on the
ground that it's exertion will inju-
riously affect the rights of complain
ant (Rhode Island) because of repug-
nancy to constitutional limitation"
The exercise of political power by
Congress is by virtue of constitutional
authority" the brief added. "Usurpa-
tion of power has no warrant.
''The defendants threaten acts that
are in defiance of existing state
power and existing state law: In
so far as they are able to carry out
their threats, they will, in effect, in
terfere with the functions of the
state by illegal and unwarranted acts.
Under these circumstances it is the
right and duty of the state to assert
1tS authority anu seek 10 HldluIdiH ~
in this court. Where. as in this case,
the wrongs are threatened, by officials
of the federal government. who are
| beyond the territorial boundaries of
the state, this tribunal is not merely
the proper but the only tribunal in
which the authority of the state may
| be vindicated.
'"The state not only seeks to pre-
vent On interruption in the exercise
of it's governmental powers, but also
seeks the protection which this court
may afford by injunctive relief from
irreparable damage to its property
| interests. The state and it's subdivi-
sio1s have already lost considerable
sums by the refusal of it's citizens tc
take out licenses for the sale of non
| Intoxicating liquors, said non-intoxi-
eating liquors under the laws of the
state of Rhode Island being intoxi-
eating liquors under the so-called Vol.
stead act. The state and it's sub.
divisions will continue to lose large
sums aggregating more than $500. OOf
/ per year"