New Britain herald., 1920-03-04
Says Congress Has No Right to Regulate Habits And Morals of American People.
STATES RIGHTS ARE
 BEING INFRINGED ON

1 Washington, March 1.-The State
 of New Jersey, through it's attorney
 general, Thomas F. McCran. today
 filed in the United States supreme court it's suit seeking to have the con- stitutional prohibition amendment de-
 clared null and void, and, to prevent Endorsement of the Volstead act,
 Joseph A. Lanigan, assistant state
 attorney general, has asked for an yearly hearing upon the petition, which
 is directed against A. Mitchell Palmer. 2United States attorney-general and Daniel c. Roper, commissioners of iNkernal revenue.
 Ai Not Ratified in Fl States.
 @sW9TAe bdll of complaint sets forth that z the amendment was improperly
 drawn, that in 21 states tho legisla-
 ttires have not ratified it, as provided .s,by their state constitutions, and that satnere is no power in congress to pro-
 pose a constitutional amendment reg sailating the habits and morals of the apeoples. It recites further that the \ samendment is 6 legislative and not 2 Constitutional matter and that as such Lit was improperly passed.
 s# Complaint also is made that the v amendment establishes centraliza-
 Son of power and authority without : the consent of the people of the State of New Jersey and that it is a viola- zion of their sovereign rights. The Volstead act having been enacted AInder authority of the 18th amend Tnent the petition says, is itself null :. and void. ..-. Destroys Taxable Property.
 Continuing, the petition states that { the yolstead act is illegal because, by depreciating and in a large measure destroying the taxable value of real -@fShd personal property within the
 AHfea it is destructive of the state $ Tree and independent governmen ent. Sfbecalse it deprives the state of reqe-
 mAes from licenses which, in 1918,
 Amounted to $244o,s ,s99, and becau SC q sN interferes with the internal govern
 Jnent of the people and operates TO punish them by heavy fines and for 3Heitures. thus preventing the applica
 ton for licenses for the sale of non Z Intoxicating bevera ges which is auth . orized and legal under the laws of E. the state. Restricts Doctors, etc.
 T Complaint is made further that the x act restricts the practice of phySi-
 scians and surgeons of the state and the operation of its penal correction Il Stand haritable institutions; that the state has not concurred in the nation | al amendm ent, and that if the act is
 enforced it nullifies the right of the A state to regulate it's internal affairs, ' and further that the act. is not ap- to enforce the prohibition { contained in the amendment which is ~ e.xp ressly confined and limited to in x toxicating liquors.
 In conclusion, the complaint de-
 clares that if the amendment is valid.
 the right of the federal congress 70 1egislate under it is restricted to mat
 ters relating to "the external concerns Of the United States and within the fpeculiar domain of the federal gov sernment to regulate commerce among
 the states, and that the state alone has the power to enforce the act with in it's own borders"
 Hearings Monday.
 Upon the motion of Assistant ' Attorney General Frierson, the court definitely fixed next Monday for hear q ing argum ents in the Rhode Island x case as well as in appeals from Ken t lucky and Massachusetts, involving
 validity of the prohibition amend
 ment.