Greenwood daily commonwealth. (Greenwood, Miss.) 1919-1926, 1920-04-14
X X 4 i i. y X y i, 4 * \ = -
* WASHINGTON
4 NEWS LETTER
By The Washington Star
Copyright 1920.
x \. X * =: X 4. =. 4 x 4 4 4

- ~ - - - -. - - ~ -
WASHINGTON, April 13-Pretty
near the first question the average
visitor to the National Capital asks
Of the solons on Capitol Hill is 1Wil
anything be doae 20 loosen up the ma.
tion-wide bone-dry state Of affairs p
The same question or words tanta-
mount form the burden of many let
ters received by the statesmen.
Sometimes the query is followed by
language which shows it to have been
put in hopeful frame of mind, the
interrogation having in the back of his
head some last glimmer of expecta-
ton, a spark in the ashes that has
not yet been extinguished by Con-
gressional legislation and Supreme
Court upholding. Other times the
question is put apprehensively, as if
the propounder feared that some court
or Congress procedure may break
down section of the wall which has
been built up against the use of more
than one half of one per cent of alco-
hol.
The way of asking it all depends up
on how the questioner feels on the
subject. And by the same token, the
burden of the answer is likewise lar
gely influenced by the respondents
personal predictions or views. The
wish is often father to the thought.
Considered in the cold light Of facts
as they exist, the situation is found
to show overwhelmingly drift in Con-
gress against relaxation of the bone
dry statute, and up to this time at
least, unmistakable disposition in the
court of last resort to uphold the leg
islation of Congress. The best judg-
ment of wise men on Capitol Hill is
that no abatement of the restrictive
laws need be expected from this Con-
gress. What other Congresses may
do is another question.
Eminent men, learned in the law
and well grounded upon the constitu-
ton and it's Interpretation by the
courts, differ in their representations
as to whether the expected forthcom-
ing decisions of the Supreme Court
will modify the existing rigorous sta
tutes or nullify the amendment to
Constitution of the United States un-
der which they were enacted.
They do know that the court thus
far has steadily backed up the Con-
gress enactments, but now that the
question has departed from interpre-
tation of the strict letter of the law
and entered upon the wider field of
the relations, under the constitution,
between the federal government and
the so-called sovereign states," many
otherwise confident forecasters are
afraid to venture predictions of the
Courts journeyings into this region,
a portion of which is hitherto un-ex-
plored.
This unknown land is the concur
rent" enforcement by the Congress
and the states of the constitutional
prohibition against liquors. Upon the
definition by the Supreme Court will
depend whether the states may by
state enactment permit the manufac-
ture of light wines and beers, through
legislative decision as to what percent
age of alcohol constitutes an intoxi-
eating beverage, prohibited by the
constitutional amendment.
AS it we'll known, several states,
notably New Jersey and Rhode Island,
have undertaken to designate an al
coholic content in excess of that pre-
scribed by the act of Congress, and
other states are known to stand ready
to follow suit if the Supreme Court
decides they have that power. If the
Court denies states that privilege, and
upholds in every way the constitution
al amendment, there will be no re-
course for those who would relax the
restrictions, save to future Con-
gress which would raise the national
standard of alcoholic content.
Congressman in touch with their
on this very burning
question say that there are many
varying currents Of public opinion,
some of them surprising. Only on one
feature of the liquor question, they
say, do they find practically unani-
NOUS agreement among the people at
large, and that is that the saloon is
dead, never to be resurrected in this
The dispensing of intoxicat-
ing liquors even under what might be
called moderately reasonable restrict
ions is altogether unlikely, and the
open bar is absolutely impossible OF
IN this land.
And, it is reported to these Con-
that there is q vev re-
markable shifting Of public opinion,
or It may be open demonstration OF
an opinion already fixed, in favor Of
modif ying the drastic statutes Of pro-
hibition. @Good people and by that
-. IL