Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1920-03-29
JERSEY FIGHTS DRY
/. AMENDMENT BEFORE
U.S.SUPREME COURT
First Revolutionary One to De
prive States of Sovereign Rights,
Says Attorney.
"U.SCAN'T POLICE A STATE"
pv,.sr,a,ed Press TO Every Evening

BY Associated Press 10 Every Evening
Washington, March 20.-Tbe eighteent
amendment To the constitution, known
as the Prohibition Amendment, is legis-
lative in mature and revolutionary m
character. according To Attorney1 General
Thomas +. McCrnn, Of New jersey, in
onenine his argument before the United
States Supreme Court IN New Jerseys
snt to have the amendment declared VOID
and the Volstead Act Unconstitutional.
Eight points were raised and discussed
in the argument
Attorney-C General McCran's brief do
clared that the eighteenth amendment
was not constitutjonally proposed; that
the proposal is subject To judicial reyiew;
that Congress did not by two thirds N
numbers Of both HOUSES affirrnatlveiy vote
for the proposal of the resolution; that
three fourths Of the states have not ratiifed
m the constitutional ssasa-
The brief also declared tllat the National
Prohibition act is not appropriate lefsis-
lation, that there IS no right m congress
Tn leVislate o1iyide the words OF the amend
rnent: that the words beverage puposes
sufficiently describe the limit within which
Congress will lsrislate and that the term
Intoxicating liuuors' rs it's own definition ;
that the Volstead Law fixing the standard
is oppressive and unconstitutional
that the Volstead law IS unconstitutional
in that n attempts to interfere with the
right OF physicians and druggists to furnish
LIQUOR: that the institutions owned and
conducted by the state OF New Jersey are
hampered and restricted by the arbitrary
act Of Congress.
The history Of New Jersey and rts re-
latinn tn the Federal government both
before and since the adoption Of the CON
stitution. was discussed IN the brief whfie
the rights which the states s,IrrenderIng
for the purpose Of forming more perfect
union are detailed at length
The br,ef also stated that the IL amend
ments to the constitution prior To the
eighteenth prohibition" amendment, are
| subjects relating TO the structure and form
| of the government and are not amend
| rnents revolutionary N character winch
deprive theStates of their Sovereign power
| In supplemental brief fled by New
| Jersey & attorney-general an entirely move
| point Is made, that the right To amend
/ the constitution is right Of the people O
| the United States as distinguished iron
the people of a particular state; tha
! people of the United States have onl,
national powers, the police power belnl
reserved to the states, and the right Q
| internal poliee being a right OF the peopl
| of New Jersey over which the people o. tn
United States have no control Tn
| right may not be taken from them vIthou
| their consent
The constitutionalItv Of the prohibition
amendment and portions Of the enforce
ment act argued before the Suprem
Court again 10 day was IN connection
with consideration of the original SUI
brought by the State uf New Jersey ant
appeals from that state and from Is
consin Because of the number OF cases
! arguments were not expected TO b
concluded before tomorrow.
The cases today involved ylrtuaily tn
same questions as the Rhode Island Ken
tuoky and Massachusetts, cases recenu,
presented TO the court, but the ongna
New Jersey suit embodied a more e1ten
sive attack upon the validity Of tn
| eighteenth amendment and parts OF N
| enforcement act than heretotorc brough
to the court ; attention.
The other New jersey case, brough
| by Christian FeigenSpan, a Newar
| brewer, and the Wisconsin suit. Will
attacking the validity of the amendment
/ involve principally the right To contInu
the manufacture Of beer alleged 10 b
! Notwithstanding but containing more tha
one half of one per cent of alcohol, tn
| maximum allowed under the enforcement
I act