The Raymer enterprise., 1920-06-10
PROHIBITION IS
CONSTITUTIONAL
10Th FEDERAL PROHIBITION
AND EMFoRcEMENT ACT
HELD VALID.
"DRYD ACT UPHELD
OPINION RENDERED ~ JusricG
VAN pEvANTeR WITH Nc
kENNA DISSENTING.
Western Newspaper Union New. Service.

'''-sNf" Nsbek~s Saipo wv OSINtSe
Washington. June 8.-Both the fed
eral prohibition amendment and the
enforcement act passed by Congress
have been held constitutional by the
Supreme Court.
The opinion was rendered by Asso-
clate Justice Van Devanter.
Permission TO file motions asking
for rehearing Of the cases was given
by the court at the request Of the at.
torneys In the various prohibition
cases.
While the vote Of the court on the
main decision has not yet been an.
nounced. 1t Is known that at least Jus.
tiee Mckenna dissented.
The court dismissed petitions filed
by the state OF Rhode Island to have
federal officials enjoined from enforc.
ing prohibition in that state.
lnJunctions restraining prohibition
officials from interfering with the
Manitowoc Products Company. a Wis
consin corporation, In the manufacture
Of beer containing more than y Of l
per sen! Of alcohol were dissolved By
the court.
The court upheld federal court D.
crees dismissing proceedings brought
10 enjoin the prohibition amendment
from being enforced against Christian
Feigenspan, q brewer Of Newark. N. J.
Federal court DEGREES diminishing In
junction proceedings Instituted By the
Kentucky DlstiIleries and Warehouse
Company Of Louisville, Ky. to enjoin
enforcement OF the act against It, wers
sustained By the court. Injunctions
sought by George c. Dempsey. Bos-
ton, Mass. Wholesale liquor dealer to
restrain enforcement Of the enforce
ment act against him. were also denied
by the court.
The court held as follows:
1.-THE adoption OF both houses Of
Congress. each by a two-thirds vote.
OF a joint resolution proposing an
amendment 10 the constitution sum.
cienily shows that the proposal was
deemed necessary by all who voted
for 1t. An express declaration that
they regarded 1t as necessary is not
essential. None OF the resolutions
whereby prior amendments were pro-
posed contained such declaration.
'-The two-thirds vote In each
house, which Is required In proposing
an amendment, Is a vote Of tw0-thlrds
Of the members present assuming the
presence Of qu0rum--and not vote
Of two-thirds OF the entire membership
present and absent Missouri Pacific
Railway Company VS.. Kansas, 248. q.
5 278.
''3-The referendum provisions Of
state constitutions and statutes can.
not be applied consistently with tho
constitution OF the United States In
the ratification or rejection Of amend
ments to II. Hawke vs.. Smith-U. 8,
decided June ], 1870
1.-THE prohibition OF the manufac-
ture, sale. transportation, importation
and expectation OF intoxicating liquors
for beverage purposes, as embodied in
the eighteenth amendment, Is within
the power TO amend reserved by article
5 OF the constitution.
"5-That amendment BY lawful pro
posal and ratification has become .
part of the constitution and must BE-
respected and given effect the same
as other provisions Of that instrument.
The court also dismissed injunction
proceedings brought BY the state Of
New Jersey to prevent enforcement Of
prohibition within that state.
Federal court DEGREES denying sim
liar injunctions sought by the st. Louis
Brewing Association. likewise. were az.
runnI