The Chattanooga news. [volume] (Chattanooga, Tenn.) 1891-1939, 1920-06-07
Amendment and volstead En-.
forCement Act Upheld by
Supreme Court.
VAN DEvANTLER RULING

The court dismissed petitions filed by
4 he state of Rhode Island to have fed.
sral officials enjoined from enforcing
prohibition in that state.
The court also dismissed Injunction
proceedings brought by the state of
New Jersey to prevent enforcement of
prohibition within that state.
lhlunctlons restraining prohibition Of
lolals from interfering with the Mani
oWoc Products company. a Wisconsin
corporation, in the manufacture of beer,
containing more than one half of / per
cent. OF alcohol were dissolved by the
sourt.
The court upheld federal court DEGREES
lsmisstng proceedings brought to enioin
he prohibition amendment from being
1 H'ntorced against Christian Feigenspan,
4 breewr, of Newark, N. j.
Federal court DEGREES denying similar
hJunctions sought by the St. Louis
8rewing association likewise were af.
Eirmed.
Dismiss Kentucky Case.
The courts opinion was very short,
betting forth only the courts conclu-
slons. Chief Justice White rendered a
supplemental opinion concurring in the
EPne rendered by Justice Van Devanter,
put going more fully into the issues in
Federal court DEGREES dismissng in
junction proceedings instituted by the
#aentucky Distilleries and Warehouse
company, of Louisville, Ky, to enjoin
sniorcement or the act against it, were
fustained by the court Injunctions
Fought by George c. Dempsey. a Bos-
ION, Mass, wholesale liquor dealer, to
Restrain enforcement of the enforcement
Hict against him were also denied by
Hhe court.
Associate Justice McReynolds. while
&1ot dissenting from the courts opinion,
#aid he confined his Conclusions to the
#act that it is impossible to say what
construction should be given to tao
r Etghteenth amendment. A multitude of
questions will arise and I prefer to re-
main free when they arise"
y The court held as follows:
n l. The adoption by both houses Of
congress, each by a two-thirds vote, of
b Joint resolution proposing an amend
nent to. the constitution sufficiently
H>cessary by all .who voted for it. An
Epress declaration that they regarded
III rs necessary Is not essential. None
NJ the resolutions whereby prior amend
Ehents were proposed contained such
declaration.
= The two thirds vote in each house
Nhch, is required in proposing an
Epnendment is a vote of two-thirds OF
Re members present-assumtng the
Bresence of a quorum-and not a vote
M two thirds of the entire membership
Rae sent and absent. Missouri Pacific
Railway company VS. Kansas. 24S, U.
81 276
l Is The referendum provisions OF state
and statutes cannot be
tHplied. consistently with the constitu-
ticn of intoxicating liquors for bever-
NMation or rejection of amendments to
H. Hawke VS. Smith, U. S. decided
VNne I, 1920.
/ Il The prohibition of the manufac-
Ehre. sale, transportation and exporta-
ten of intoxicating liquors for bever?
Ete purposes. as embodied in the eigh-
tacnth amendment, is within the power
amend reserved by article of the
- fiiat Ia u aasinendment by 1awf,a propo.
Isal and ratification has become a part
bf the constitution and must be re-
fpected and given effect the same
Pa other provisions of that instrument.
G. The first section of the amend
nnent-the one embodying the prohibit
Eipn-is operative throughout the entire
Territorial limits of the United States,
binds all legislative bodies, courts, pub
liz officers and individuals within these
Emits, and of its own force inV.slidates
bny legislative act-whether by con-
kress by state legislature, or by terri
lorial assembly-which authorizes or
Eactons what the section prohibits.
| T. The second section Of the amend
h;ent--the one declaring the congress
fud the several states shall have con-
hrrrent power to enforce this article
EN appropriate Observation-Disclosures not
Bubble congress for the several states
r. defeat or thwart the prohibition, but
kptv to enforce it by appropriate means.
s. The words concurrent power" In
lhat section do not mean joint power
b require that legislation hereunder
b. congress, to, be effective, shall be
pnproved or sanctioned by the several
ktates or any of them: nor do they
bcan that the power to enforce is di,
kided between congress and the several
ktates along the lines which separate
br distinguish foreign and interstate
commerce from intrastate affairs.
Il .. The power conf1ded to congress by
hat section, while not exclusive. is ter
titorially coextensive with the prohibit
lion of the first section, embraces man. |
bfacture and other intrastate transac-
lions. as we'll as importation, exporta-
lion and interstate traffic. and is IN
b9wise dependent on or affected by ac-
ion or inaction on the part OF the sew
brHl states or any of them.
| TO- That power may be asserted
gainst the disposal for beverage pur- |
hoses of liquor manufactured before
the amendment became effective. yet |
lecture fo4 those purposes. In either
base 1t is a constitutional mandate or
prohibition that is being enforced.
Il. While recognizing that there are
limits beyond which congress cannot
20 in treating beverages as within its
5ower of enforcement, we think those !
limits are not transcribed by the pro-
l-ision of the Vostead act. wherein |
inuors containing as much as one-hal
III per cent. OF alcohol by volume and
ut for use for beverage purposes are
.reated as within that power jacob
Ruppert VS.. Caffey, 25i U. s.. eS4.
Justices Dissent.
The courts opinion on the main is
sues involved was unanimous Asso-
,iate Justices Mckenna ana CIarh'
fad
Il Associate Justice Mckenna, IN sun
sA,other oninion, said: THE court de-
SAres conclusions only. without giving
reasons for them. / must at least ex-
euse If cannot justify my alssept. ptso
Justice McKenna said the Khode
Island and New Jersey cases should
nave been decided on their merits he
added that he did not agree with me
action of the court in reversing the
NiTConsin case. -,
clifton measures passed by congress re-
-Srdless Of state referendums is uphelo;
Tho decision nullifies Immediately an
ne laws permitting sales OF hlgh CON
m; alcoholic beverages upon the lor
mai declaration of peace. such as nave
,een enacted in Rhode Island. New Jer-
scy and Wisconsin.
Victory for Government.
The decision represents a victory ioI
he government and the prohibition
0ICFS in all courts dlh illAsN =
IS the law Of the land until amended
,y congressional action or by the re-
zeal Of the constitutional amendment
by the same method as originally
ulstiIIers' Fight is lost.
ChIeaoo June LEVY Mayer.
o. Chicago. who argued the case
for the dlstllers in the supreme
court. said on hearing Of the de-
sion:
The fiuht is lost The avenue
, If the courts is now exhausted"
| The constitutionality Of the Nolstead
LOST AND FOUND