Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1920-06-08
THE PEOPLE WISHED TO
END THE LIQUOR BUSINESS
And the Supreme Court Has De-
clded That They Had the Right
and the Power to Do Il

clded That They Had the Right
and the Power to Do II
FTHE Supreme Court has once more
= justified popular confidence in its
practical wisdom.
by unanimous decision Il has sum
marily rejected the legalistic and quib-
bling arguments used in an attempt to
induce it to invalidate the prohibitory
constitutional amendment. And IL has
sustained the Nolstead act, passed to
enforce the provisions of the amend
ment.
Laymen are particularly interested In
the decision so far as 1t affects the Vol
stead act. because they have been
anxious that it should be settled
whether Congress has power to fix an
arbitrary alcoholic content for bever-
ages and to prohibit the snles Of bever-
ages containing n greater amount of al
cohol. They have also been anxious to
know whether the states could permit
the sale of beverages containing more
alcohol than that permitted by the Vol
stead act.
The court seems to have settled these
questions beyond dispute. for it has dis
missed the injuuctions brought in vari-
Gus states to prevent the enforcement
of the federal law where it Contlictcd
with state laws. II has announced that
control over the liquor traffic is not di-
vided between Congress and the states
along the lines which distinguish for
eign and interstate commerce from
commerce within the state boundaries.
And it has declared that the act of
Congress dealing with the liquor traffic
is territorially cocXtensive with the pro-
hibitory section of the constitutional
amendment. and that state legislature
cannot nullify the act of Congress.
1t is now apparently illegal in any
state or territory Of the Union to man
ufacture or sell for beverage purposes
any drink containing moro than one
half of l per cent of alcohol.
This decision rests upon some epoch
making rulings regarding the methods
OF constitutional amendment and the
'ower of the people to change the con-
stitution to please themselves.
There are three of these rulings. each
for the opponents of the amendment
They are all included in the opinion
handed down yesterday.
1t was maintained that as the amend
ment had not passed Congress by a
! two thirds vote of all the members it
had not received the necessary consti =
| tutional majority. SO far as the two
thirds majority is required to override
a presidential veto the court had in a
! previous case decided that all that was
required was two thirds of quorum
present and voting. 1t has now decided
that two thirds of a quorum is all that
is necessary to pass a constitutional
amendment for submission to the legs
latures of the states.
Then it was maintained that where
the states had provided that a consti
tutional amendment must be submitted
to the voters, ratification by the legis
lature was not sufficient but that the act
of ratification to be complete must be
effected in accordance with the prov
sions of state statutes or constitutions
If this point had been sustained the
proclamation Of the secretary Of state
announcing that three -fOurths of the
states had consented to the amendment
would have been invalid. The court
decided last week that the provisions OF
the federal constitution were binding
on the states and that they could not
change in any detail the method OF
ratifying or rejecting proposed amend
ments. This is reassertcd in ycster
days decision.
These two points dealing with de
tail are insignificant in comparison will
the decision on the denial of the powe
of Congress and the states to insert il
the constitution an amendment pro
hibiting the traffic in intoxicating bev
erages. This denial was made by Elih,
Root in his brief for some New Jerse,
brewers. He argued that the prohibi
tory amendment was new matter ant
was also legislative and he insisted tina
, the section Of tho constitution providing
, for amendment did not permit the ad
! dition of new or legislative matter. II
: said that an amendment must be a cor
reCtion or an improvement in the bod
> of the document which did not chang
{ its essential nature. The effect of hi
contention was that the trainers of tn
{ constitution had Great an inhexibl
document in which no succeeding gen
erations could make any radical change
5 and to which they could make no ad
ditions which we're inconsistent wit
4 its original form and purpose.
r This newspaper took occasion whe
' Mr.. Root made his argument befor
| the lower courts to point out the bour
$ bonistic tendencies of his plea, and W
l ventured the opinion that the Suprem
e Court would reject his view with scar
courtesy.
2 This is exactly what the court ha
done. 1t does not indulge in any argu
ment on the point, but merely an
nounces that 'the prohibition of ii
manufacture, sale, transportation an
expectation OF intoxicating liquors fc
beverage purposes, as embodied in tn
q eighteenth amendment, is within Il
mower to amend reserved by Article
5 of the constitution.
r To put it little more briefly, II
s court says: 'Alr. Root, you are mis-
Z taken"