Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1920-03-15
Concurrent Power"

7 LEGISLATORS In Washington and in va
L. rious State capitals, jurists generally and
just plain citizens have been pcrplexed over
the purpose and meaning of the term con
current power" which appears in the proh-
bition amendment to the Constitution. indi-
eating in an obscure but significant fashion
that the States have equal authority and re-
sponsibility with the Federal government in
the enforcement of this amendment.
In some quarters it was assumed that this
was Joker" designed to nullify prohibition
enforcement in such States as might prefer to
remain wet. 1t has even been intimated that
it .as conceived by that shrewd old expon-
ent OF antiprohibtion, Senator Penrose. of
Pennsylvania, that he caused the term to be
inserted in the organic law with the deliber-
ate purpose of defeating. in large measure,
the object Of the amendment itself.
Investigation, however. reveals the fact
that the term was not actually sponsored by
Penrose, but was legislated into the amend
ment by Representative Steele, OF Pennsyl-
vania, follower OF the Senator, and himself
inclined to champion the liberal view of pro-
hibition Also Mr.. Steele has found occasion
toaexplain the things that were i'll his mind
at the time he persuaded the Judiciary COM
mittee of the House to accept the phrase. He
says that it was his desire that any enforce
ment legislation to be effective must be con-
Cured in by the individual States themselves.
and widely debated question is of interest.
When the amendment came from the SEN
ate, he says. lit provided that Congress
should have the power TO enforce this article
as in the case of other amendments. The
majority OF the committee was dry at the
time, but gave notice that 1 would offer two
amendments to the amendment. One pro-
vided that the government should enforce
prohibition in, interstate commerce and the
States should lDtraState
mcrce. Finally the committee accepted the
proposal that there should be concurrent
power" in the enforcement of the law.
There cannot be two supreme legislative
powers he continues, exercising at the
same time upon the same object. In this
case. we have seen fit to create two Joint SUI
preme powers, one OF the Federal government
and the other of the State governments. Both
must act before full effect be given to
the concurrent provision Of the Constitution.
The rule is laid down. that joint action by
Congress and the several States is necessary
for the enforcement legislation under the
eighteenth amendment. There is no escape
from this conclusion.
1t is apparent from Mr.. Steele's interpre-
tation OF the concurrent power clause that
State action is absolutely necessary to the en-
forcement OF the prohibition amendment II
any State, according to his version, refuses to
act In harmony with the will OF Congress, that
State is within its rights and cannot be COM
PEELED to accept the act of Congress as it may
apply to purely intrastate traffic in liquor.
If the Supreme Court does not settle this
question in dealing with the Rhode Island or.
some other prohibition case now before that
tribunal it is evident that the issue will be
raised in some other direction and will find
its way to the court through another chan
mel. The country has right to know what
is meant by concurrent power.