The Columbus dispatch. (Columbus, Miss.) 19??-1922, 1920-06-09
CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBI-
TION AND VOLSTEAD
ENFORCEMENT
ACT LEGAL.
OPINION SHORT
Matter Settled Once For All In
United States BY
Court of Last
Resort.

Washington, June 8.-Both the
federal prohibition amendment and
the enforcement act passed by Con-
gress were held constitutional today
by the supreme court.
The court dismissed petitions filed
BY the State of Rhode Island to have
federal officials enjoined from enforc-
ing prohibition in that state. The
court also dismissed injunction pro-
ceedings brought by the State of New
Jersey to prevent enforcement Of pro-
hibition within that state.
Injunctions restraining prohibition
officials from interfering with the
Manitowoc Products Company, Wis
consin Corporation, in the manufac-
ture of beer containing more than
one-half of one per cent of alcohol,
were dissolved by the court.
The court upheld federal court de-
crecs dismissing proceedings brought
to enjoin the prohibition amendment
from being enforced against Christ
ian Feigenspan, brewer of Newark,
N. j.
Federal court decree denying sim
liar injunctions sought by the st.
Louis Brewing Association, likewise
we;e affirmed.
The courts opinion was very short,
setting forth only the courts con
clusions. Chief White rendered sup
Elemental opinion, concurring in the
one rendered by Justice Vandevanter,
but going inore fully into the issues
involved. s
Federal court dccrees dismissing
Injunction proce edings instituted by
the Kentucky Distilleries and Ware
llpuses Company, Of Louisville, Ky,
To enjoined enforcement of the act
against it, were sustained by the
court. Injunctions sought by George
Ci Dempsey, a Boston, Mass, whole
sale liquor dealer, to restrain enforce
ment of The enforcement act against
him, were also denied by the court.
The court held as follows:
Ruling Of Court.
"ii) The adoption by both houses of
Congress each by two-thirds vote
Of joint resolution proposing an
amendment tc the constitution suffi-
GENTLY shows l.'at the proposal was
deemed necessary b. all who voted
for it, An expressed declaration that
they regarded it as necessary is not
essential None Of the resolutions
whereby priora mendments were pro-
posed contained such declaration.
"(2) The two-thirds vote in each
house, which is required in proposing
an amendment, is a vote of two-thirds
of the members present-assuming
the presence of quorum-and not a
vote of two-thirds of the entire
membership present and absent. Mis-
souri, Pacific Railway Company VS..
Kansas, 24S, U. S. 276.
"(8) The referendum provisions of
state constitutions and statutes can
not be applied consistently with the
constitution of the United States in
the ratification or rejection of amend
ments to it. Hawke VS.. Smith, u. S.,
decided June i, 1920.
go The prohibition of the manu-
facture, sale, transportation, importa-
tion and expectation of intoxicating
liquors for beverage purposes, as en-
bodied in the eighteenth amendment
is within the power to amend reserv-
ed by Article v of the constitution.
"(5) That amendment by lawful
proposal and ratification has become a
part of the constitution, and must be
respected and given effect the same
as other provisions of that instru-
ment.
"(6) The first section of the
amendment-the one embodying the
prohibitions operative throughout
the entire territorial limits of the
United States, binds all Legislative
bodies, courts, public officers and in
dividuals within those limits and Of
its own force invalidates any legislat
i've act-zwhether by Congress, by
state legislature or by a territorial
assembly-which authorizes or sane
tions what the section prohibits.
"(7) The second section of The
amendment - the one declaring th'
Congress and the several states shall
(Coutinued on Page q