The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1920-06-11
OPINION o. THE COUE.T
PRESENTED In DETAIL
What the Supreme judges Held
On the Prob ibition
Amendment
The court held as follows:

mo. /. The adoption by both
houses of congress-. each by a two
thirds vote, of a Joint resolution pro-
posing an amendment to the consti-
tuition sufficiently shows that the
proposal was deemed necessary by
all who voted for il. An express dec
laration that they regarded it as ne
cessary Is not essention. None of
the resolutions whereby prior amend
ments were proposed contained such
a declaration.
1.-TWO. The two thirds vote in each
house which is required in proposing
an amendment is q vote of two
thirds of the members present-as-
suming the presence Of quorum
and not a vote of two thirds of the
entire membership present and alb
sent. Missouri Pacific Railway COM
pany VS.. Kansas. 248. U. s. 276.
Three. The referendum provisions
Of state constitutions and statutes
cannot be applied consistently with
the constitutions and Of the, United
States, in the ratification of rejec-
ftion Of amendments to it. Hawke VS.
Smith, u. S. Decided June 1, 1920.
-Four. The prohibition of the man
|ufacture sale, transportation impor-
tation and expectation of intoxicating
liquors for beverage purposes as
embodied in the eighteenth amend
ment, is within the power to amend
reserved by Article V Of the consti-
tuition.
give. That amendment by lawful
proposal and ratification has become
a part Of the constitution and must
be respected and given effect the
same as other provisions of that in
strument
"Six. The first section of the
amendment-the one embodying the
prohibitions operative throughout
the entire territorial limits of the
United States, binds all executive
bodies, courts, public officers AND in
Idividuals within those limits. and Of
its force invalidates any executive
act-whether by congress, by a state
legislator or by territorial assem-
bly,.
ton Hereunder by congress to be eff
fective, shall be approved or sanction
them; nor do they mean that the
power to enforce Is divided between
congress and the several states along
the lines which separate or distin-
guish foreign and Interstate commerce
from interstate affairs.
Mine. The power confided by con-
gress to that section, while not ex-
elusive, is territorialy co-eXtensive
with the prohibition OF the first Sec
ton. embraces manufacture and other
interstate transactions as we'll as i'm
portation, expectation and Interstate
traffic, and is in no wise depend on
or affected by action or inaction on
the part of the several states or any
of them.
B "Ten. That power may be exerted
against the disposal for beverage pur-
poses of liquor manufactured the
amendment became effective, just as
1t may be against subsequent manu-
facture for other purposes. In eth
er case 1t is constitutional mandate
or prohibition that is being enforced.
Eleven. While recognizing that
there are limits beyond which con
gress cannot go in treating beverages
as within its power of enforcement,
wS think these limits are not trans
cribed by the provisions of the Vol
stead Act, wherein liquors containing
as much as one-half of one per cent
Of alcohol by volume and 1T for use
for beverage purposes are treated as
within that power. Jacob Rupert VS..
Caffey, 251, u. S. 264."
Permission to file motions asking
for re- hearing of the cases was Civ
en- by the court at the request Of the
attorneys in the various prohibition
cases.