The daily banner. (Cambridge, Md.) 1897-2008, 1920-06-08
-. !: ::AE COURT !
tf..,,o:9s DRY LAW
Prohibition Amendment 511 VI
stead ACt Held Va i'd.
BREWERS SUITS DISMISSED

Washington, June Both the
Federal Prohibition, or Eighteenth
Amendment of the Constitution, and
the Enforcement or Volstead act,
passed by Congress, were held con4
stitutional today by the Supreme
Court. Justice Van Devanter rem
dered the opinions. "a
The Court dismissed petitions filed
by the State of Rhode Island to have
Federal officials enjoined from en-
forcing prohibition in the State. T
The Court also dismissed injunc-
ton proceedings brought by the
State of New Jersey to prevent EN-
forcement of prohibition there. Il
The Courts opinion was very
short, setting forth only the Courts
fidings. Chief Justice White ren-
dered a supplemental opinion, con
curing in the one rendered by JUS
tice Van Devanter, but going more
fully into the issues involved.
The Court upheld Federal Court
DEGREES dismissing proceedings
brought to enjoin the Prohibition
Amendment from being enforced
against, Christian Feigenspan, a
brewer, of Newark, n. j.
Federal Court DEGREES denying
similar injunctions sought by the st.
Louis Brewing Association, likewise
was affirmed. s.
Injunctions restraining prohibi-
ton officials from interfering with
the Manitowoc Products Company, a
Wisconsin corporation, in the manu-
facture of beer containing more than
half of one per cent. of alcohol, were
dissolved by the Court.
Federal Court DEGREES dismissing
in junction proceedings instituted by
the Kentucky Distillers and Ware
house Company, of Louisville, to en-
Join enforcement of the act against
it, were sustained by the Court. In
functions sought by George 9.
Dempsey, a Boston wholesale liquor
dealer, to restrain enforcement OF
the Enforcement act against him,
were also denied by the Court.
The Court had as follows: &
1.-THE adoption by both Houses
of Congress each by two-third vote
of a joint resolution proposing an
amendment to the Constitution suf-
ficiently shows that the proposal
deemed necessary by all who voted
for it. An express declaration that
they regarded it as necessary is not
essential None of the resolutions
whereby prior amendments were pro-
posed contained such a declaration.
"2-The two-thirds vote in each
House. which is required in propos-
ing an amendment is 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 abb
sent. Missouri Pasific Railway COM
pany VS., Kansas, 248, U. S. 276.
"3-The referendum provisions
of State constitutions and statutes
cannot be applied, consistently with
the Constitution of the United States
in the ratification or rejection OF
amendments to it. Hawke VS..
Smith-U. S.-decided June 1, 1920.
"4-The prohibition of the manu-
facture, sale transportation, impor-
tation and expectation of intox1cat-
ing liquors for beverages purposes,
as embodied in the Eighteenth
Amendment, is within the power to
amend reserved by Article V. OF the
Constitution.
"5-That amendment by lawful
proposal and ratification has become
2 part of the Constitution and must
be respected and given effect the
same as other provisions of that In
strument.
"6-The first section of the
arendment-the one embodying the
prohibition-is operative throughout
the entire territorial limits OF the
United States, binds all legislative
bodies, courts, public officers and IN
dividuals within those limits, and OF
its own force invalidates any legis-
Iative act-whether by Congress, oy
a State Legislature or by Terrltor-
ial Assembly-which authorizes OF
sanctions what the section pronlDits.
1.-THE second section OF the
amendment-the one declaring the
CONGRESS and the several States shall
have concurrent power to enforce
this article by appropriate leglsla-
tion-does not enable Congress for
the several States to defeat or
thwart the prohibition, but only TO
enforce it by appropriate means.
"S-The words concurrent power
in tha >tion do not mean JOINT
power ongress to be etfectlve
sb- -oved or sanctioned by
IL tates or any Of them;
n mean that the power TO
em. vided between the Con-
gress {, we several States along
the lines which separate or dis
tinguish foreign and interstate COM
merce from intrastate affairs.
"9-The power confided to Con
gress by that section, while not ex-
elusive, is territorially co-extenslve'
with the prohibition of the first sec
tion. embraces manufacture ana
other intrastate transactions as Well
Importation exportation and inter-
state traffic, and is in no wise de-
pended on or affected by action or
inaction on the part of the several
States or any of them.
''1O-That power may be asserted
against the disposal for beverage
nurposes of liquor manufactured be-
fore the amendment became effective
vet, as it may be against subsequent
manufacture for those purposes. IN
either case it is constitutional
mandate or prohibition that is belFFg
enforced.
"11-While recognizing that there
are limits beyond which Congress
cannot go in treating beverages as
within its power or enforcement we
think those limits are not trans
cended by the provision OF the VOL
stead act, wherein liquors containing
as much as one-half of one per cent.
for alcohol by volume and tit for use
for beverage purposes are treated as
within that power. Jacob Ruppert'
vs.. Caffey, PSI U. S.
Validity of the Prohibition Amend
ment and portions of the Enforce
ment act was involved in seven sepa-
rate proceedings before the Supreme
Court. Two of these were Original
suits brought by Rhodes Island ana
New Jersey as sovereign States to en-