Norwich bulletin., 1920-06-08
RE- HEARINGS PERMISSIBLE
ON THE 18TH MENDMENT
Continued from Page one)

Continued from Page One)
ment Of laws regarding beverages, the
court held those limits were not tran
scended in the enactment of the enforce
ment act restricting alcoholic content of
intoxicants to one-half of one per cent
While New York, New Jersey and Wis
eoflsin acts permitting manufacture and
sale of beverages Of more than one-haf
of one per cent. alcoholic content were
not directly involved, the decision was in
terpreted as invalidating them. The court
said the first section of amendment of its
own force "invalidates any. legislative act
--whethef by congress, by a state legisla-
ture or by territorial assembly-which
authorizes or sanctions what the section
prohibits
Concurrent powe' granted by the amend
tnerlt to federal and state governments to
enforce prohibition, the court further
held, does not enable congress or the
several states to defeat or thwart prohi-
bition but only to enforce it by appro-
pirate means"
The decision of the court was set forth
in eleven conclusions covering seven sep
arate proceedings. These proceedings in
eluded original suits brought by the state
Of Rhode Island, directly attacking the
consttutioaality Of the amendment
While agreeing as to the validity of
the amendment and enforcement act, Jus
tees Mckenna and Clarke dissented from
the majority Interpretation of the con-
current power of federal and state gov
ernnlents to enforce prohibition Chief
Justice White held that the court should
set forth the reasoning for its decision
He did this in supplemental opinion
Justice McReynolds in a brief state
| fnent declared he was of the opinion that
it was impossible to say at this time
what construction should be given to the
amendment. He added that because of
the bewilderment which the amendment
| creates" he preferred to remain free to
consider the multitude of questions which
will inevitably arise and demand solu-
tion.'
The decision set at rest contentious
previously laid before the court that the
amendment could not affect alcoholic
liquors manufactured prior to Jan. Is,
when the amendment became effective.
The court held that the amendment ap-
piled to such liquors the same as any
produced after that time.
Regarding arguments to the effect that
a state having constitutional referendum
provisions could not have been said TO
nave ratified the amendment until it had
been submitted to the voters the court
cited its opinion rendered last Monday
IN the Ohio referendum cases, in which
1t held that such referendum provisions
do not apply to federal amendments,
Only one prohibition case of Importance
remains undecided. It is an appeai from
New York involving the eonstitutionaIitv
OF portions of the enforcement act nro-
hlpltlng storage in warehouses OF iritoxi-
eating liquors designed for personal Use
This case was argued this spring but with
ia1aT
summer cannot be decided before October
at the earliest.
Justice Whites ConcurrinE Opinion.
Chief Justice White in a coneurriny
opinion said: AIS
I profoundly regret that in a case or
,, this magnitude, affecting as il does an
amendment to the constitution dealing
with the powers and duties of the ma
tional and state governments. and inf
| mately concerning the welfare of the
whole people, the court has deemed If
proper to state only intimate concIu
sions without an exposition of the rea-
sening by which they have been reach
ed.
Il appreciate the difficulties which a.
solution of the case involved and the
| solicitude with which the court has an
| proacAed Them but 1t seems to my
|
the greater the duty devoxing upon me
| to express the reasons which have led
meto the conclusion that the amend
ment accomplishes and was intended to
accomplish the purposes now attributed
TO 1t ia the propositions concerning that
| subject which the court has lust an.
! nonnced and in which concur"
| Referring to the provisions in the fed
| etal amendment prohibiting the manu-
| aoff Ii
toxicating liquors and that relating to
! concurrent power. the chief justice said {:
| 1T is contended that the result Of
these provisions is to require concurrent
| action of congress and the states in en-
| forcing the prohibition of the first sec
ton 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 A
dead, letter. But in view of the manifest
| purpose of the first section TO apply and
make efficacous the prohibition, and Of
| the second to deal with the methods of
/ carrying out that purpose, I cannot ac-
| eept this Interpretation, since it would
| result simply in declaring that the pro.
visions of the second section. avowedly
enacted to provide means for carrying
| out the first, must be so interpreted as
| to practically nullify the first.
| ut is said, conceding that the concur
rent power given to congress and to the
states does not as a prerequisite exact
the concurrent action of both It never.
theless contemplates the possibility OF
action by congress and by the states and
| makes each action effective, but as IN.
der the constitution the authority of con.
gress in enforcing the constitution is
paramount, when state legislation and
congressional 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, again find
myself unable toaccept the view urged
because it ostensibly accepts the con-
stitutional mandate as to the concur
renee of the two powers and proceeds
Immediately by way of Interpretation to
destroy it by making one paramount
1 over the other.
4 1.-THE proposition is that the concur.
rent powers conferred upon congress and
the states are not subject to conflict be-
cause their exertion is authorized with
in different areas, that is, by congress
within the fields of federal authority and
by the states within the sphere of the
state power. hence leaving the. states
free within their jurisdiction to determine
separately for themselves what, within
|