The Glenwood post., 1920-06-12
Disciples of Bacchus Receive Scan
Comfort When the Eighteenth
Amendment is Reviewed
THEY WILL STAND H|TCHED

Washington, June THE prohibi-
ton amendment and the enforcement
act were held constitutional by the SUI
preme court today in unanimous de-
cision.
While attorneys for the interests at
lacking the two measures We're grant
ed permission to file motions for re-
hearings. the decision was regarded
generally as striking a death blow to
the hopes of the VETS.
The court IS opinion, rendered by
Justice Van Devanter, was sweeping"
1t held that the amendment not oniY
came within the amending powers con
ferred bv the federal constitution, but
was iawtUlly proposed and now was
law. While recognizing congress has
limitat CTS as to the enforcement of
laws regarding beverages, the court
held those limits were not transcribed
in the enactment of the enforcement
toxicants e one-half of one per cent.
While New York, New Jersey and
Wisconsin acts permitting manufacture
and sale of beverages of more than
one-half per cent alcoholic content
were not directly involved the decs-
ION was Interpreted rs invalidating
them. The court said the first section
of the amendment of its own force
"'invalidatcs any legislative act =
whether by congress. by state lcgis-
lature or by territorial assembly
which authorizes or sanctions what the
-ection prohibits.'
Concurrent power granted by the
amendment of federal and state gov
crnments to enforce prohibition, the
court further held, "does not erabie
congress or the several states to defeat
or thwart prohibition, but only to en-
force it by appropriate meals"
The decision was set forth in eleven
coucluGons covering seven proceed
ings. These proceedings included orig
inal suits brought by Rhode Island, d.
of the amendment.
While agreeing to the validity OF
the amendment and enforcement net,
Justices McKenna and Clarks dissent
ed from the majority Interpretation OF
the concurrent power of federal and
state governments to enforce prohihl-
ton. Chief Justice White held that
the court should set forth the reason
ing for its decision. He did this in
supplementary opinion.
Justice McReynolds in n statement
declared he was of the opinion that II
was impossible to say now what CON
struction should he given to the am
endment. He added. that because "of
the bewilderment the amendment ere
ates' he preferred to remain free TO
consider the questions which will "n-
evitably arise and demand solution.
The decision set at rest contentious
previously laid before the court that
the amendment could not affect alec
holic liquors manufactured prior 8"
January l6, when the amendment be-
came effective. The Court held That
the amendment applied to such hqnoes
the same as to any produced after
that time.
Regarding arguments that stare
having constitutional referendum pro
visions could not have been said to
have ratified the amendment until il
had been submitted to the voters, the
court cited its opinion rendered last
Monday in the Ohio referendum cases
in which ii hclA such referendum pro-
visions do not apply to federal amend
ments.
Only one prohibition case of impor-
tance remains undecided. 1t is an APP
peal from New York involving the con-
stitutionalfty of portions of the en-
forccmcnt act prohibiting storage in
warehouses Of intoxicating liquors de-
signed for personal use. This case,
with the courts adjournment today
for the summer, cannot be decided b.