The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1920-04-09
ARGUMENTS BEFORE.
SUPREME COURT ON
CONCURRENT POWER.
Claims of Counsel on
Dry Law Upon Which
Final Decision Largely
Depends.

/ Washington. April s.-Upon the
construction of the term concurrent
power" depends in large measure tho
action Of the supreme court in the
seven cases affecting prohibition now
( before IT. Counsel on both sides have
included definitions in their arguments
/ before the court
! IN claiming that the federal prohi-
btti1n code cannot be enforced in New
jersey without concurrence by STINT
lar state legislation Eiihu Root and
! W. u Guthrie stated The state was
not surrcndering to the federal gov
lernment any part OF the exclusive con-
ttrOl then exercised and exercisable hy
jlt over its own internal affairs nor
was the federal government surreu-
I dcrinS any part OF its exclusive con-
troll over interstate and foreign com
lmerce. but each was retaining an .af-
! fectlVc voice within its own sphere OF
action"
/ Counsel for the liquor interests IT
Massachusetts contended that the fed
eral code could not 60 into operation
until three fourths Of the states rat{-
fed it by enacting similar legislation.
The representative Of the brewing
interests Of Milwaukee claims the
state has supreme mower over the
liquor tranc; "The state Of Wiscon-
sin. having, under the power reserved
by and granted to it by the eighteenth
amendment enacted legislation to en-
force the prohibition contained on
such amendment. aud not having con-
CURED in ahe congressional legislation
congress is without power 10 enforce
it's legislation as 4 strictly intrastate
transaction"
If any OF these definitions are
adopted by the coaSt, beer containing
ELS per cent alcohol may he sold IN
states that do not prohibit 1t or fail
70 concur in the act Of congress which
fixes tho standard at one half OF /
per cent.
The justice department OF the
United states construed concurrent
power as follows: There is an cX-
press purpose, of course, that congress
shall have power to legislate for the
enforcement Of an amendment The
only qualification or Limitation Of the
power so conferred is that instead Of
being exclusive, it shall be concur
rent with like power in the several
states. II is not required that there
shall he joint action by congress and
the states that the legislation en-
acted by the one shall be concurrci
lin by the other 1T VIII be noted
that section j does not say that legis-
iatIon shall be concurrent. but that the
concurrent power to legislate shall
exist. 1t is respectfully submitted
that the validity of the Volstead act
does not depend n any sense on
whether it has been concurred in by
the state Of New Jersey or not
The opinion of Andrew J, Volstead,
chairman Of the judiciary committee
of the house, was quoted to the court
as follows The amendment cannot
be enforced by granting the right =
do certain things; X must be enforced
by forbidding the things forbidden bsal
the amendment. Any act left unpun-
Iished by state may, nevertheless, be
punished by the national government
III such punishment tends to- enforce
the anne ndment and, likewise, to ae-
complish the same purpose an act left
unpunished by the national govern
ment may be punished by the states"
| Il. y Webb, former congressman
and author of the eighteenth amend
ment, expressed his views as follows:
! IF state. through its law-maktnzs
| body, does not consider 1t necessary
| 10 limit the alcoholic content to one
half of 1 per cent. but thinks at . "a
per cent sufficient then. as a matte
| OF course. any person in such state
who manufactured to beverage CON
tanning 3-4 per cent alcohol would
not and could not be punishable BIZ
such state authorities for making such
beverage, hut such person would be
liable to indictment by the federal
authorities because he had violated
the federal act which limits the alco-
holic content to less than one-half OF
| / per. cent"
/ View of Wheeler
Wayne =. Wheeler. general counsel
Iof the Anti-Saloon League. and six CO.
counsel, set forth the views of the
lprohibitionists. in part, as follows;
| Either the state or the United States
may go as far in prohibiting the bev-
erage traffic as section IL of the
eighteenth amendment authorizes but
the failure of either to use all of its
power does not prevent the other from
dong so. When either unit of gov
eminent does act within the scope of
TITS authority and prohibits the traf1c,
the other unit cannot license or le
galrze the traffic in the territory GOV.
cred by the prohibition act. If the
state attempts to override or set aside
the valid laws of the United States nv
lenaeting license laws permitting the
sale of prohibited beverage LIQUORS.
they will be Of no avail. because the
vendor must obey the laws of the
United States as well as those of the
state. Likewise, the congress cannot
license the sale of intoxicating LIQUORS
IN conflict with state laws because
there no authority to license bev
erage intoxicants"