Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1920-06-07

uliStlon proceedings DfouSnt Dy
vent enforcement of prohibition
,lusions to the fact that it is impos-
sible to say what construction should
be given to the eighteenth amend
ment. A multitude of questions will
arise and l prefer to remain free
when they arise
Associate Justice McKenna in still
another opinion said:
THE court declares conclusions
only. without giving reasons for them.
l must at least excuse if cannot JUS
tify my dissent"
Justice McKenna said the Rhode
Island and New Jersey cases should
have been decided on their merits. He
added that he did not agree with the
action of the court In reversing the
wisconsin case.
ment and portions of the enforcement
act was involved in seven separate
proceedings before the Supreme Court.
Two of these were original suits
brought by Rhode Island and New
Jersey as sovereign states to enjoin
enforcement in their Jurisdiction upon
the grounds that both enactments
were unconstitutional. The other
cases ware direct appeals from lower
court DEGREES.
Steps to institute the suits were
taken Immediately after the amend
ment became effective on January 16
and on motion of counsel their con-
sideratiou was expedited. ssg - -,.s,-s,
. In. befhs the Rhode Island and New
Jersey suits the validity of the eight
eenth amendment was attacked, but the
New Jersey case also alleged that even
II the amendment were valid the en-
forcement act was unconstitutional be-
cause It had not been concurred in by
New Jersey under provisions of the
amendment giving the federal and state
governments concurrent power to en-
force prohibition. New Jersey also con-
tended that II the entire enforcement
act were not unconstitutional the por-
tions OF 1t limiting the alcoholic content
OF beverages to less than one-half of l
per cent and relating to the dispensing
of liquors for medicinal purposes were
invalid.
The cases reaching the court on ap-
peals were those of the Kentucky Dis
tilleries and Warehouse Company,
Christian Feigenspan. a Newark, N. j.,
brewer; the st. Louis Brewing Asso-
citation, and George c. Dempsey, a
wholesale liquor dealer Of Boston.
Mass. who lost Injunction proceedings
in the lower court. The other case
government from decision of Fed
eral Judge Geiger enjo!ning federal
officials from Interfering with the
Manitowoc Products Company, a Wis
consin corporation, in the manufac-
ture of beer containing 2.5 per cent
alcohol.
In all the cases a general attack on
the amendment was made on ground
that it was revolutionary and consti-
tuted legislation in the guise of a
constitutional amendment designed to
regulate the private habits of individ-
sfn
states police powers; that it was in
valid because adopted by two-thirds
of the members of Congress present
when the vote was taken and not by
two-thirds of the membership and
that the amendment was not ratified
by three -fourths of the states owing
to provisions in many state consti-
tutions requiring that amendments be
submitted to referendum.
Chief Justice Whites Opinion.
Chief Justice White, in concurring
opinion, said:
Il profoundly regret that in case
Of this magnitude, affecting as it does
an amendment to the Constitution.
dealing with the powers and duties of
and intimately concerning the welfare
of the whole people, the court has
deemed it proper to state only ulti-
mate conclusions without an exposi-
ton Of the reasonings by which they
have been reached.
II appreciate the difficulties which
a solution of the cases involved and
the solicitude with which the court
has approached them, but it seems to
my mind that the greater the perplex-
tiles the greater the duty devolving
upon me to express the reasons which
have led me to the conclusion that the
amendment accomplishes and was in
tended to accomplish the purposes now
attributed to it in the propositions con-
cerning that subject which the court
has just announced and in which con-
cur"
Manufacturing and Sale Clause.
Referring to the provisions of the
federal amendment prohibiting the
manufacture, sale or transportation
of intoxicating liquors and that re-
lating to concurrent power the Chief
Justice said:
1T is cor tended that the result of
! these provisions is to require concur
| rent action of Congress and the states
| in enforcing the prohibition of the
absence of such concurrent action by
| Congress and the states no enforcing
| legislation can exist, and therefore
| contemplates the possibility of action
by Congress and by the states. and
| makes each action effective, but as
under the Constitution. the authority
| of Congress in enforcing the Consti-
tuition is paramount. when state legis-
iation and congressional action con-
| fiict the state legislation yields to
| the action of Congress as controlling
| But as the power of both Congress
and the states in this instance is given
by the Constitution in one and the same
provision, l again find myself unable tc
accept the view urged because it os-
tensibly accepts the constitutional
\ mandate as to the concurrence of the
| two powers and proceeds immediate
by way of Interpretation to destroy il
| by making one paramount over the
| other.
| Powers Not subject to Conflict.
| The proposition is that the concur
| rent powers conferred upon Congress:
and the states are not subject to con.