Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1920-06-07
FEDERAL PROHIBITION
AND ENFORCEMENT ACT
HELD CONSTITUTIONAL
Continued from Fira, Page.

fiict because their exertion is au-
thorized within different areas; that
is. by Congress within the fields of
federal authority and by the states
within the sphere of state power,
hence leaving the states free within
their jurisdiction to determine sepa-
rately for themselves what. within
reasonable limits. Ia an ihtoxicatfn z
liquor and to Congress the same right
within the sphere Of it's Jurisdiction.
But the unsoundness of this more
plausible contention seems to me at
once exposed by directing attention
to the fact that in a case where no
state legislation was enacted there
would be no prohibition, thus again
frustrating the first section by A
construction affixed to the second. 1t Is
no answer to suggest that regulation
by Congress would In such event be op-
erAtive in such state, since the basis Of
the distinction upon which the argu-
ment rests is that the concurrent
power conferred upon Congress is
confined to the area of its jurisdic-
ton and therefore is not operative
within a state.
Hacks Up Congress Action.
COMPREHENSIVE looking at all
| these contentious. the confusion and
contradiction TO which they lead,
serves in my judgment to make it
certain that ii cannot possibly be that
Congress and the states entered into
the great and important business of
amending the Constitution In a mat
ter SO vitality concerning all the peo-
| pie solely In order to render govern
mental action impossible. or If pos
sible. to so define and limit it as tn
cause 1t to be productive Of no result
| and to Illustrate the obvious intent
and general purpose contemplated
ut is true. indeed, that the mere
words of the second section tend to
| these results. but If they be read in
the light of the cardinal rules which
! compel a consideration Of the con
text in view of tie situation and the
subject with which the amendmen nj
dealt and the purpose which it was
| intended to accomplish. the confusion
VIII be seen to be only apparent
First section Imposes Prohibition.
| In the first place, it is indisputa BILE
| that the first section imposes a gen
eral prohibition which it was the pur-
pose to make universally and uni
| formly operative and efficacious In
the second place. as the prohibition
did not define the intoxicating beyer-
ages which 1t prohibited, in the alb
sence OF anything to the contrary. II
clearly, from the very fact of its
duty, not only of defining the pro
hibited beverages. but also of enact
ing such regulations and sanctinns
as were essential to make them oner.
| alive when defined
In the third place, when the second
section is considered with these
/ truths In mind it becomes clear thai
IL simply manifests a like purpose tn
adjust. as far as possible. the exercise
| of the new powers passed upon Con,
gress. by the amendment to the dua
| system of government existing under
the Constitution.
| I'm other words. dealing with tbs
new prohibition created by the Con.
stitution. operating throughout ms
length and breadth Of the United
States. without reference to stats
lines or the distinctions between STATE
and federal power. and contemplat FIN :
the exercise by Congress of the d,,tv
passed upon II to make the prohihi.
tion etfcacious. 1t was sought by the
second section 10 unite national and
| state administrative agencies In eiy.
ing effect to the amendment and the
| Legislation Of. Congress enacted ~
make ii completely operative
First section snMcient,
| Il take II that If the second sec
| ton of the article did not exist nc
one would Fainsay that the first sec.
ton in and of itself granted the
power and imposed the duty upof
Congress to legislate to the END thai
] by definition ana sanction the amend