New-York tribune., 1920-06-08
Supreme Court
Upholds Dry
Amendment
Continued from prseedinv pa,s

such action promote better the purpose
OF the amendment-will it not bring to
the enforcement of prohibition the
power of the states and the power of
Congress, make ell the instrumentali-
ties OF the states, its courts and Off
GERS, agencies of the enforcement, as
well as the nstrumentalities of the
united States, its courts and officers,
agencies Of the enforcement?
it IS, however, urged that to require
lily the prohibition of the amendment.
for without legislation it's prohibition
would be Intellectual, and that. it is i'm
possible to secure the concurrence of
congress and the states in legislation.
cannot assent to the proposition. The
conviction of the evils of intemper-
ance, the eager and ardent sentiment
that impelled the amendment. will
lmpel its execution through Congress ss
and the states"
Opinion by Chief Justice
Chief Justice sWhite, in a separate
concurring opinion, in which he ex-
pia'ned the courts reasoning and an
swered briefly the questions raised bv
Justice McKenna, said:
- profoundly regret that in case
OF this magnitude, affecting as it does
an amendment to the Constitution deal
ing with the powers and duties of the
!naclonal and state governments and
Intimately concerning the welfare Of
!ne whole people, the court has deemed
~ proper to state only ultimate con-
c!uslons without an exposition of the
reached. ~e'
II appreciate the. difficulties which a
solution of the cases involved and the
solicitude with which the court has an
proached them, but it seems to nv
mind that the greater the perplexities
the greater the duty devolving upon
me 10 express the reasons which have
amendment accomplishes and was IN
tended to accomplish the purposes now
attributed to. it in the propositions
concerning that subject which the
court has just announced and In which
I concur"
Dual Power Explained '
Taking up the two provisions of the
amendment, the first of which prohib-
ITS and the second grants concurrent
enforcement powers, the Chief Justice
continued:
1T is contended that the result of
these provisions is to require concur
rent action of Congress and the states
IN enforcing the prohibition of the first
section, and hence that in the absence
OF such concurrent action by Congress
and the states no enforcing legislation
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 eff.cacious
the prohibition, and Of the second to
deal with the methods of carrying out
that purpose. L cannot accept this in
depreciation, Nsince it would, result
simply in declaring that the provisions
OF the second section, avowedlv en-
acted to provide means for carrying
out the hrst, must be SO interpreted as
to practically nullify the first.
Congress Controls Over States
ut is said, conceding that the con-
current power given to Congress and
to the. states does not as pre-
requisite exact the concurrent action
Of both, it nevertheless contemplates
the possibility of action by Congress
and by the states and makes each &C.
ton effective. but as under the Con-
stitution the authority Of Congress in
enforcing the Constitution is para
mount, when state legislation and Con-
gressional 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, l again
find myself unable to accept the view