Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1920-06-08
Decision Practically Unanimous
That the Eighteenth, or Dry
Amendment, is Constr
tutional.
ALL WET CLAIMS ARE
WHOLLY SWEPT ASIDE
Volstead Enforcement Act Also
Stands Test of Highest Court
in the Land.
ALL OTHER DRY CASES
UPHELD BY BENCH

Washington, June s In n sweeping
decision covering both the Eighteenth
amendment and the Nolstcad Enforce
rnrnt net the United States supreme
Court Yesterday declared both OF these
Legislative cuactmcntS constitutional
That Congress did not transcend the
powers oi the State M passing the Nei-
.1cad act and prohibiting tho sale ~ liquor
containing more than onc-lm'i OF pot
cent Is the decision Of the highest tribunal
Decision pt the court Was read 'N Jnsll't
Nandevantcr and constituted = ciclu-'ut
victory Tor national prohibition ~ 20
particular did the supreme 'ouff Hn-
ho!d any contention - the WCt~ ~ the
several suits brought either ~ ohl'eihE
states or hquor and brewery Interests
cases attacking the rou~tltutionaI1tv
If the Eighteenth Nucndment and the
Nolstcad net. ranging from tue suit oi
Rhode Island to similar complaints pro
-entcd hv the kentucky hefltiet'e and
Warehouse Company. the - LOUIS
Brewing Association and other ilquNr
concerns. were all hunchcd and dis
posed II h> TODAY comprehensive dee'-
-lnp.
u'kr<Nt pf~-FNTS oN FART.
The decision Il the court was rrae-
,,.tIt, unanimous. .Irsticc NchCunn
delivered dissenting opuion on the
concurrent power issue and Chlct
.8,,-tl.c White and Justice Mcl}cynoIdS
,uttri5 ed certain features ., the lav and
fbc cmirt Gvri~ion nut then objections
were - Slight that thcv 9ld not render
m,narlt, decisions announcing W~toad
thClr substantial concurrence HI the coh-
,ht~lap- 81 tho court Il1ci lu-tlee Nmtc
sfltIcizei the second section q the amend
lncnt hccatSc If the u~c II the words
concurrent lanvcr~ lut sald this would
i.at constitute grrurds Ter fhc hnlllil'3
tian II fhc prohibition statutes Antl-
,.-shthltloIiiots hal crcatlv stressed tho
l--nr 1T concurrent power canstuHnE
# ~ mean that i state might concur
~ refuse to concur IN thc Ecdcral aw
Tho aeeisinn kna, ls The props from
l,nJcr evcry wet hopo The highest court
oil,cd if slate tlcau ot pending contests
over the, constitutional ands enforcement
III tho prohibition amendment in case
who're the lower court had declared the
amendment unconstitutional ~: tad II
any sense 1nvahdatcd the Enforcement
act the Supreme Court ovcHui"d tft
lower court In instances where the lower
court had upheld the cOnstltuIlonailfN II
fhc amendment and the Nol~toad Law Il
,cerccs we're affirmed Altogether tto
court disposed Of seven pending cases
CASES THAT WERF DECIDED
By title and number tho eases disposed
III IL todav's decision were
Ne 20 Original State Ct khodr
Island. complainant versus Al Mitchell
Palmer. Attoncy- q III
NJ 20 Original State ot \cn lcrscN.
complainant. versus \ Mitchell Palmer.
tttorney-(,cner ct AZ
W. ~ Appeal from thc District
Co5!ri al thc United states tor tho IDS
-rlct nf Massachusetts George lponI'-
>,.v. appclan1 versus Thomas boNnIon,
4~ nitcd states attorney. ct ~
No 80 Appeal from the Distinct
Courf of the nited StatestoT tile Western
District If kentucky; Kentucky Dl~td-
lerIcs and Warehouse CO. appellant,
versus " Y Gregory. as nitcd states
attorney q al
No. IS Appel from the District
Court of the United States for the Dis
trict Of New Jersey. Christian FclCenSpan,
y corporation APPELLANT versus Joseph l..
BodInc. as M ted States attorney. q ri
No. 974-Appcal from tic District
Court of the | nltcd States for tho Eastern
District Of Wisconsin; Hiram \ Sawyer.
4, I 'nitcd States attorney. q nj. appel
lant>. versus Manitowoc Products Go.
No. So. appeal from the District Court
81 the United States for the Eastern DIS
trjct of Missouri. ST Louis Brewing As
sociation, appellant. versus George H
Moore, collector, ct al
Giving effect to these conclusions. Z
said Justice Van Dcv9nter N conclusion
.swe dispose Of the eases o. follows
In Nos % and 80 original the bill.
are dismissed.
In No. 794 the decree IS reversed
In Nos. G96, 752. .SS and 81 thc
DEGREES are affirmed
TWO MAKE &PI.AIN THEIR STAND.
Both Chief, Justice White and jus
tjcc NcReynolds made il plain that the,
we're not dissenting from the decision o
the court. Justice AIcReynolds SAID b,
did not believe the time yet ripe for
sweeping decision but did not question
the validity of tho Eighteenth Amend
nent, which. he said was inquest ionabl1
valid
Chef Justice White criticized the lacl
of clarity in the language of the amend
,nent as to concurrent power and th'
definition OF intoxicating liquors Il