The Birmingham age-herald., 1920-06-02
RATIFICATION OF
 !. AMENDMENTS IS A NATIONAL POWER
Constitution Grants Power and States Cannot Pro- vide Otherwise, Ruling
 of Supreme Court
By Associated Press

Washington, June f.--The supreme court, in an unanimous opinion today, held that federal constitutional amend ments cannot be submitted to popular vote for ratification by states having referendum provisions in their consti- tutions.
 The method of ratifying amendments, the court held, is a national power, spe- officially granted by the federal eonsti- tuition and the states have no authori- ty to provide otherwise. In so hold ing. the court declared imperative provisions of the Ohio state constitu- tion authorizing submission of federal amendments to d referendum for ratifi- cation, and overturned state supreme court decrees dismissing injunction proceedings brought by George $. Hawke Cincinnati attorney. in a tax payers suit to enjoin submission of the prohibition and woman's suffrage amendments to a referendum vote.
 Next to the cases involving the valid- ity of the prohibition amendment, and the enforcement act, the Ohio referen- dun cases were considered the most important before the supreme court. Had the court ruled otherwise the de- cision would have most likely resulted, according to court officials, in the re- opening of the suffrage question in approximately a dozen states and the filing of petitions for a referendum vote With thirty-five states, one less than the constitutional three-fourths having already ratified the suffrage
 fa lei unquestionably have-banished all hopes of ratification prior to the November elections.
 PENDING CASES NOT AFFECTED
 The decision, however does not af- feet the pending prohibition cases as none involved that question except in- directly. In view of the fact that forty five of the eight states have al- ready ratified the liquor amendment. Attorneys in recently arguing those cases before the supreme court con- ceded that even if the court held that the prohibition amendment could be submitted to the voters. enough states without referendum provisions in their constitutions would remain to provide the required three-fourths
 The courts opinion, however puts an end to any controversy as to whether Ohio has ratified both amendments. and puts both definitely in the list of states approving each of the amend ments.
 Power to ratify federal amend : ment, according to the courts opinion. which was rendered hv Associate Jus tice Day, is derived from the federal constitution and state has no author ity to designate the means of ratifica- tion The language of the constitution, the opinion said is plain relative to ratification and admits of no doubt in it's interpretation.
 Justice Day said that by requiring 2 ratification to be by the Legislatures the framers of the constitution meant the recognized legislative body in each state and characterized as "fallacious' arguments that 1t was their intent that ratification should be by the ''legis- lative action of the states through the medium provided at the time of the i, proposed approval of an amendment" Ratification of an amendment. the court held, is not legislative act and , any other construction might result in endless confusion.