Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1920-06-07

-
within that state.
The courts opinion on the main
issues involved was unanimous. AS
sociate Justices McKenna and Clarke,
however. dissented in part.
Injunctions restraining prohibition
officials from interfering with the
Manitowoc Products Company, a
Wisconsin corporation. in the manu-
facture of beer containing more than
one-half of / per cent of alcohol
were dissolved by the court.
Upholda Federal Court DEGREES.
The court upheld federal court de-
crees dismissing proceedings brought
to enjoin the prohibition amendment
from being enforced against Chris
tian Feigenspan, brewer of Newark,
N. J.
Federal court DEGREES denying SIM
liar injunctions sought by the st.
Louis Brewing Association likewise
were affirmed.
Federal court DEGREES dismissing in
junction proceedings instituted by the
Kentucky Distilleries and Warehouse
Company of Louisville, Kentucky. to
enjoin enforcement Of the act against
1t were sustained by the court. In
functions sought by George Dempsey,
Boston, Massachusetts. wholesale
liquor dealers, to restrain enforcement
of the enforcement act against him
were also denied by. the court.
Holding of Court. - -
courts opinion was very short,
setting forth onlythe courts conclu-
eions. Chief Justice White rendered
a supplemental opinion concurring in
the one rendered by Justice Van De-
vanter. but going more fully into the
issues involved.
The court held as follows:
One: The adoption by both Houses
of Congress. each by two-thirds
an amendment to the Constitution
sufficiently shows that the proposal
was deemed necessary by all who
voted for it. An express declaration
that they regarded 1t as necessary is
not essential. None of the resolutions
whereby prior amendments were pro-
posed contained such a declaration.
"2. The two-thirds vote in each
House which is required In proposing
an amendment is vote of two-thirds
of the members present-assuming
the presence of a Quorum-and not a
vote of two-thirds of the entire mem
bership present and absent. Missouri
Pacific Railway Company VS.. Kansas,
24s, United States, 276.
Referendum Cannot Apply.
"3. The referendum provisions of
state constitutions and statutes can
not be applied. consistently with the
Constitution of the United States, in
the ratification or rejection of amend
ments to it. Hawke vs.. Smith, United
States. decided June 1. 1920.
Il. The prohibition of the manu-
facture, sale. transportation. importa-
tion and expectation of intoxicating
liquors for beverage purposes, as en-
bodied in the eighteenth amendment.
is within the power to amend reserved
by article v of the Constitution.
IS That amendment by lawful pro-
posal and ratification has become a
part of the Constitution. and must be
respected and given effect the same
as other provisions of that instru-
ment.
''6. The first section of the amend
ment-the one embodying the prohi-
bition-is operative throughout the
entire territorial limits of the United
States. binds all legislative bodies,
courts, public officers and individuals
within those limits. and of its own
force invalidates any legislative act
whether by Congress, by a state
bly-which authorizes OR sanctions
what the section prohibits.
Purpose Cannot he Defeated.
a. The second section of the
amendment-the one declaring the
Congress and the several states shall
have concurrent power to enforce
this article by appropriate legisla-
tion'-does not enable Congress or the
several states to defeat or thwar
the prohibition. but only 20 enforce
1t by appropriate means.
rs. The words concurrent power in
that section do not mean joint power,
or require that legislation Hereunder by
Congress, to be effective, shall be ap-
proved or sanctioned by the several
states or any of them: nor do they mean
that the power to enforce Is provided be-
tween Congress and the several states
along the lines which separate or dis
tinguish foreign and Interstate com
merce from intrastate affairs.
.'9. The power confided to Congress
by that section, while not exclusive, is
territorially co-extensive with the pro-
hibition of the first section, embraces
manufacture and other intraState tran.
sactons we'll as Importation. exportas.
ton and interstate traffic. and is in nc
wise depended on or affected by actor
or inaction on the part of the severa
states or any of them.
May Be Asserted Against Disposal.
10. That power may be asserted
against the disposal for beverage pur.
poses of liquor manufactured before
the amendment became effective, ye
as il may be against subsequent man
ufacture for those purposes. In either
ease il is a constitutional mandats
or prohibition that is being enforced
III. While recognizing that there
are limits beyond which Congress:
cannot go in treating beverag ges a.
within its power of enforcement. we
think those limits are not transcend
Cd by the provision of the Nolsteat
act, wherein liquors containing a:
much as one-half of one per cent o.
alcohol by volume and fit for use fol
beverage purposes are treated a:
within that power. Jacob Rupper
vs. .Caffey. psi L. s.. 264
Justice McReynOIds Not Convinced.
Associate Justice McReynolds, Will,
kEpt dissenting from the court