The Birmingham age-herald., 1920-06-08

hopes he is the leading candidate for nation for President.
 ment accomplishes and was intended to accomplish the purposes now at- tributed to it ins the propositions con- corning that subject which the court has just announced and in which I con- cur'
 Referring to the provisions in the federal amendment prohibiting the manufacture. sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors and that relating to concurrent power, the chief justice said:
 NOT DEAD LETTER
 Tt is contended that the result of these provisions is to require concur rent action of Congress and the states Tn enforcing the prohibition of the tlrst section, and hence that, in the absence of such concurrent action by Congress and the states, no enforcing leglslatlon can exist and, therefore, until this takes place the prohibition of the first section is dead letter. But in view of the manifest purpose of the first section to apply and make efficacious the prohibition and of the second to deal with the methods of carrying out that purpose, I cannot ac- cept this interpretation, since it would result simply in declaring that the pro- visions of the second section, avowedly enacted to provide means for carrying out the first, must be so interpreted as to practically nullify the first.
 ''lt is said, conceding that the concur rent power given to Congress and to the states does not as prerequisite exact the concurrent action of both, 1t never theless contemplates the possibility of ac- tion by Congress and by the state and makes each action effective, but as un- der the constitution the authority of Con- gress in enforcing the constitution is paramount when state legislation and congressional action conflict the state legislation yields to the action of Con gress as controlling. But as the power of both Congress and the states in this instance is given by the constitution in one and the same provision, again find myself unable to accept the view urged because it ostensibly accepts the consti- tutional mandate as to the concurrence of the two powers and proceeds imme- diately by way of interpretatoin to de- stroy it by making one paramount over the other.
 NOT A CONFLICT
 '"The proposition is that the concur. rent powers conferred upon Congress and the states are not subject to conflict be- cause their exertion is authorized within different areas: that is, by Congress within the fields of federal authority, and by the states within the sphere of state power. hence leaving the states free within their jurisdiction to determine for themselves what, within reasonable limits. is an intoxicating liquor and to Congress the same right within the sphere of it's Jurisdiction but the un- soundness of this more plausible conten- tions seems to me at once exposed by di- recting attention to the fact that in a case where no state legislation was en- acted there would be no prohibition, thus again frustrating the first section by a construction affixed to the second. It is no answer to suggest that regula- tion by Congress would in such event be operative in such a state, since the basis of the distinction upon which the argu- ment rests is that the concurrent power conferred upon Congress Is confined to the area of it's jurisdiction and therefore is not operative within state
 "Comprehensively looking at all these the confusion and contradic- tion to which they lead, served in my judgment to make 1t certain that it can not possibly be that Congress and the states entered into the great and impor- tant business of amending the constitu- tion in matter so vitally concerning all the people solely in order to render gov ernmental action impossible, or if pos- sible, to so define and limit it as to cause it to be productive of no result and to frustrate the obvious intent and general purpose contemplated. It is true indeed that the mere words of the second sec tion tend to these results. but if they be t1.o oVI;n ,I., which compel consideration of the con text in view of the. situation and the sub ject with which the amendment dealt and the purpose which it was intended to ac- the confusion will be seen to be only apparent.
 MUST DEFINE DRUNKS
 'In the first place it is indisputa ble that the first section imposes a general which it was the purpose to make universally and uniformly optra- tive and efficacious. In the second place. as the prohibition did not define the irt toxicating beverages which it prohibitet in the absence of anything to the con- trary, it clearly. from the very fact of its adoption, passed upon Congress the duty, not only of defining the prohibition beverages but also of ena cting such regu- lations and sanctions as were essential to make them operative when defined. In the third place. when the second sec tion is considered with these truths Tn mind it becomes clear that it simply manifests a like purpose to adjust. as far as possible the exercise of the new powers passed upon Congress by the amendment to the dual system of govern ment existing under the constitution. In other words, dealing with the new prohi- bition created by the constitution. operat- ing throughout the length and breadth of the United States. without reference to state lines or the distinctions be- tween state and federal power. and con templating the. exercise by Congress of the duty passed upon it to make the pro hibition efficacious. 1t was sought by the second section to unite national and state administrative agencies in giving effect to the amendment and the legislatson of Congress enacted to mako 1t completely operative"