The Birmingham age-herald., 1920-03-30
FINAL DECISION
 ON DRY LAWS BY
 APRIL 19 SEEN Decision Expected Immedi- ately After Supreme Court C0nvenes Following Re cess Beginning Today
sy A..ss..tss rr...

Washington, March 2s.-A possibility that the supreme court might pass final Judgment on prohibition questions now before 1t by the middle of next month was seen by some observers today in the announcement that the court re- cess to be taken at conclusion of argu- ments on these cases, probably tomor- row, would extend to April 19 instead of April 12. The opinion was expressed by those familiar with the courts pro cedure that a decision might be rem dered immediately when the court re- convenes
 Further argument on both sides of questions touching validity of the con- stitutional amendment and tn eenforce- ment act now before the court was presented today. They were in con nection with the original suit brought by New Jersey as well as appeals from that state and from Wisconsin. Rhode Island. Kentucky and Massachusetts have already been argued and will be naconsidered at the same time. Elihu Root, representing Christian Feigens pan, brewer of Newark, N J., Attorney General Thomas F. McCran of New Jersey, in opposition to the constitutional amendment. and Assist ant Attorney General William L. Frier- son for the government addressed the court today.
 NEW LEGISLATION
 MT. Root characterized the prohibit tion amendment as new legislation made under "color of an amendment affecting personal rights. If it's valid ity was upheld he said the effect would be that the court recognized in addition to the legislative powers of congress and the states. third legis- -~uI.- a legislation by consent of three -fourths of the states, which, he said. would be "a perversion not only of the word but of the whole tone and character of the word constitution"
 Tt is little consequence,n MT. Root said, If there be or be not prohibition in this country. 1t is of vast conse- decide rightls- ans- s<or the good of our country in theS -tpss if there are to be any limits to><sS s,e-'er of amend ment and where thu line of limitation is to be drawn.
 T insist that your honors are not at liberty to put construction upon the power to amend that will over turn the fundamental character of this government unless the language of the article is too plain to admit a ques- tion-"
 MT. Root further argued that the original bill of rights upon which the federal constitution was founded would be swept away if the amend n.ent were sustained and laws enacted fs constitutional amendments would le made superior to other Jaws. This would me4n, hs1 added, that i've are Tot a government of limited powers, because there is a legislative body that is not subject to those limita- tions.v
 Replying to an inquiry by Associate Justice Day, MT Root said only two ways existed to insert a prohibition amendment in the constitution; To transfer power to regulate the liquor traffic to Congress. as was done re- garding interstate commerce or 10 call convention to propose amendments on the same authorityAs was done for the original constitution
 WITHOUT POWER
 T contend they have not put that power into the hands of the amending authorities" Mir. Root said.
 Attorney General McCran contended the amendment was legislative in na- ture and revolutionary in character and was not adopted by two-thirds the membership of Congress or ratified by three-fourths of the states. owing to referendum provisions in various state constitutions.
 On the governments behalf MT. F'rierson reiterated arguments made in the Rhode Island case that the lues- t;on of the amendment's validity ts not
 lCsntinnG1 eo Fneo 2we)