The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1920-06-08
ACT Of SUPREME
COURT ENDS ALL
BOOZE DISPUTES
Country Now Has Clear Cut
Issue Placed Before II
STATE WRANGLES ENDED
Finding Disposes Of Caces in Rhode
Island and New Jersey to
Test Law.

Washington, June John F. Kra
mer, commissioner in charge of Fed
eral prohibition enforcement, sees "a
good effect in prospect as a result
of the Supreme Court decision on the
18th Amendment.
Whatever uncertainty there may
have been is ended" Kramer sad
Everyone knows now the principle
of prohibition is fixed. There can be
no more doubt on the part Of anyone.
There will certainly be good eff
feet"
representatives of the Federal gov
ernment engaged in prohibition en-
forcement expect several definite re-
suits as result of the decision
These include:
Proprietors Of saloons who have con
tinued in business with the hope the
Supreme Court would declare the
amendment unconstitutional will in
many cases, close their places.
Judges who may have hesitated tc
send men to Jail upon liquor law con
vict.on, while doubt remained as to
the amendment, have this doubt re.
moved.
District attorneys and agents en-
gagged in finding violators and con
ducting prosecutions, will have abso-
Lutte assurance, while before they
were slightly lin the air."
The public will have no uncerta n
ty regarding '2.75 per cent" laws
passed by States,
Washington, une S-Validity of the
Prohibition Amendment and portions
Of the Enforcement. Act was involved
in seven separate proceedings before
the Supreme Court. Two Of these
were original suits brought by Rhode
Island and New Jersey as sovereign
states to enjoin enforcement in their
jurisdictions upon the grounds that
both enactments were unconstitution
al. The other cases were direct APP
peals from lower court DEGREES.
Steps stoiTinstitute the suits were
taken Immediately after the amend.
ment became effective on January 16
and on motion of counsel their con
blueTdJlOn was eApSuslGu.
In both the Rhode Island and New
Jersey suits the validity of the
Eighteenth Amendment was at acked,
but the New Jersey case also alleged
that even if the amendment were
valid, the enforcement ac. was uncon
stitutional because it had not been
concurred in by New Jersey under
provisions of the amendment giving
the federal and state cvernments
concurren. power to enforce pro >.
tion. New Jersey also contendcd tnat
II the entire enforcement act were
not unconstitutional, the por ions Of
it limiting the alcoholic content of
beverages to less than cne-ha'f of one
, percent and relating to the dispens.
ing of liquors for medicinal purposes
were invalid.
The cases reaching the court on
appeals were hose of the Kentucky
Distillerles and Warehouse Company;
Christian Feigenspan a Newark, N.
j., brewer, the ST Louis Brewing AS
SOciation and George c. Dempsey. a
wholesale liquor dealer of Boston,
MASS, VINO lOSt injunction proceed
ings in the lower court The other
case before the court was an appeal
by the government from. a decision
of Federal Judge Geger enjoining fed
eral officials from interfering with
the Manitowoc Products Company. a
Wisconsin corporation, in the manu-.
facture Of beer containing 25 percent
alcohol.
In all the cases general attack on
the amendment was made on ground
that it was revolutionary and constl.
tuted legislation in the guise of a con
stitutional amendment designed to
regulate the private habits of indivi.
duals; that it interfered with the
states police powers; that it was in
valid because adopted by two-thirds
of the members of Congress present
when the vote was taken and not by
two-thirds of the membership and
that the amendment was not ratified
by three-fourths of the states owing
to provisions in many state constti
tons requiring that amendments be
submitted to referendum.