Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1920-06-07
federal Pro hibition
Amending ent Upheld
By Supreme Court


soctatton, and George G; Dem psey, a
wholesale LIQUOR dealer OF Boston.
Mass, who lost Injunction proceedings
in the lower court. The other case
before the courtl was an appeal byat
government from a decision Of Federal
Judge Geiger enjoining. federal Off
cials from interfering with the Mani
towoc Products company, q Wiscon-
SIN corporation, in the manufacture
Of beer containing 2.5sper cent alco-
hol. . y u ss NJ 4,
Z In ali the cases a general attack oh
the amendment was made on the
ground that it was and
constituted legislation in the guise OF
9. constitutional amendment designed
TO regulate the private habits of indi-
viduals; that 1t interfered with the
states police powers;s that it was in
valid because it was adopted by two
thirds gof the members Of congress
present when Nthe, vote was taken and
not by two-thirds of the membership,
and that the amendment was not rat
ified by three-fourths of the states
owing to provisions in many state COM
stitutions requiring that amendments
be submitted to a referendum.
Courts Opinion.
The court held as follows:
i. The adoption by both houses
of congress, each by two-thirds, vote.
of a joint resolution proposing an
amendment to the constitution suf-
ficiently. shows that the proposal was
deemed necessary by all who voted for
.t.a An express declaration that they
regarded it as. necessary is not essen
tial None of the resolutions where
| by prior amendments were proposed
contained such q declaration.
70. The two-thirds vote in each
house which is required in, proposing
an amendment is a vote Of two-thirds
of the members notwithstanding
'he presence of quorun-and not a
vote of two thirds ofsthe entire mem
bership present and absent. Missouri
paciflc Railway company VS.. Kansas,
WAS, u. s. 276
%. The referendum provisions of
state constitutions and statutes cannot
be applied consistently with the con-
tstitution. of the United States in the
ratification or rejection of amendments
June l, 1920. t
-. The prohibition of the manu-
ffacture, sale, transportation, importa-
ton and expectation of Intoxicating
liquors for beverage purposes, as en-
bodied in the 18th amendment, is
within the power to amend reserved
By Article V.sof the constitution.
! n O.. That amendment by lawful
/ proposal and ratification has become
IA part of the constitution and must
!! be respected ard p'ven effect the same
aA S.. other provisions Of that instr,..
ment. fa (
..6. The first section of the amend.
ment-.-the one embodying prohibition
lis operative through the entire ter.
ritorial limits of thesUnited States
binds all Legislative bodies, courts
public officers and Individuals withir
those limits. and of its own force in,
va1f1a tes any Legislative act-Mhethel
Nv congress- bys.a state legislature,po]
j by y territorial hssem which aau
thorizes or sanctions what the section
prohibits. s .#
- The second section Of til,
nendment one declaring 'th.
j, congress and the several states shal
article by appropriate legislation-
does not enable congress or the isev
eral states to defeat or thwart{ th,
prohibition. but only to enforce itxb,
tappropriate means.
49,, The words concurrent power
! in that section do not mean joint pow
er, or require that legislation there
! under by congress-, to be effective
shall be approved or sanctioned b,
the several states or any of them; no
do they mean that the power to en-
force is divided between congress an,
the several states along the lines whicl
separate or distinguish foreign and in
terstate commerce from intrastate af
/ fairs -
80. The power confided by congress
! toy that section, while not exclusive
is territ itorially co-extensive with tn
prohibition Of the first section, en-
braces manufacture and other intra
state transactions as we'll as importa
4 ton. expectation and interstate traffic
and is In no wise depended on or af
n fected by action or inaction on tn
part Of the several states or any o
them. s&
"1OA That power may be exerte,
against the disposal for beverage pur
poses of liquor manufactured befor
the amendment became effective jus
as 1t may be against subsequent me-
for other purposes. In either case
/ is constitutional mandate or prohi
bition that is being enforced. l
'1l. While recognizing that ther
are limits beyond which congress can
not go in treating beverages as with
lin the power of enforcement, we thin
those limits are not transcended b
the provisions of the, volstead ac1
wherein liquors containing as much q
one-half Of one per cent Of alcohol b
volume and tit for use for beveras
purposes are treated as within tha
power, Jacob Rupert VS.. Cafe,
ISL, U. s. s264." s.
= - -. q a. -. u. !.