The Washington herald., 1920-01-27
H0PE0F VETS
MUST LINGER
ON TILL APRIL
u. S. Motion in Supreme
Court Defers Decision on
Dry Amendment.
PARRIES R. |. ATTACK
Solicitor General King
Argues for Validity Of
National Prohibition.
PARRIES R. |. ATTACK

Friends of the late lamented John
Barleycorn who have entertained
fond hopes that he may be restored
to life must remain in a state of
thirsty suspense at least until April.
This became certain yesterday
when the government launched its
defense against the attack of
Rhode Island on the constitution
ality of the prohibition amendment
and the Volstead enforcement act
The governments sfirst move was
a motion by Solicitr General King
in the United States Supreme Court
that the Rhode Island bill of COM
plant be dismissed.
The validity of constitutional
prohibition may be determined by
the courts decision on this motion.
The arguments will not be made.
however. until after the February
recess of the court, Mr.. King an
nounced. The government attor-
neys had been advised. he ex-
planned, that Attorney General Her
bert A. Rice. of Rhode Island. can
not argue the motion this week.
Thus the argument cannot be
heard by the court until after
March 1. which makes il certain,
even under the. most expeditions
by the court. that an
opinion will not be handed down
prior to April /. In fact. the prob
ability is that it will be some time
thereafter.
Makes Four Points
Four reasons were advanced by
Solicitor General King in support
of his motion for dismissal of the
Rhode Island case. as follows:
"First.-Because the matter and
things set up in said bill present
no matter of a justifiable character
between complainants and defend
ants, nor does it set up any sub
ject matter properly invoking the
OF 3his court under the
grant of judicial power
'Second.-Because the facts in
the complaint do not set up any
cause of action.
'Third.-Because there is no
equity in said bill.
"Fourth.-Because the bill alleges
no cause of action against these de-
PENDANTS or either OF them"
Ohio Cases Coming.
A motion to advance the argu-
ments on the Ohio appeals inyoly-
ing the question of whether or not
States can override by referendums
of the prohibition
by legislatures also was
granted by the court. These argu-
ments will be heard March /.
A decision by the court that rati-
fications can be withdrawn by refer
endum might ultimately result in
the repeal of the amendment Ten
States have referendum laws and
three others declined to ratify the
Should the ten States
having the referendum withdraw
their ratification, this would bring
the number of ratifying States
eS"h " WHICH Is OHe snort
the necessary three-fourths for the
adoption of an amendment to the
Ia the Ohio case the prohibition
lists sought to prevent the Secretary
OF State from submitting the prohi-
bition amendment to a referendum
The decision in the loewr courts up
held the Secretary of State.
Sees Leeway for States.
The avenue of attack upon prohibi-
tion most likely to succeed, a promi-
nent government attorney said yes
terday. is through the word concur
rent" appearing in the amendment.
II states that Congress and the sew
eral States shall have concurrent
power" TO enforce the amendment
This might he construed to mean
that each State would have TO agree
to the beverages that could be pro-
hibited in its territory" the attor-
ney said. III the State desired to
allow light beer and wine to be sold
the court might hold ii had that right
under the amendment. | don't be-
lieve te court would go so far as to
authorize the old wet days i'm any
State. but it might agree the State
had a right to tilt the lid consider