Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1920-03-31
STATE RIGHTS ISSUE
IN DRY LAW FIGHT
Case in U. S. Supreme Court
Closes With Battle Over
Concurrent Jurisdiction"
IANTl-sALooNlsTs ACCUSED
Intimated League Has Manu-
factured" Evidence and That
Volstead Padded Record.
thy Associated Press. !

WASHINGTON. March 3o.-ArEu-
mcn,s on tho constitutionaIity OF the
prohibition amendment and portions
of the enforcement act were con-
cludcd today in the Supreme Court
Seven separate PROCEEDINGS now
rest with the court for determine
tion.
The arguments today were on an
pcals brought by Christian Feigen-
span. of Newark. y. j.. from Fed
cral cour; DEGREES dsmissinE in
junction proceedings to cnjoip pro.
hibition officials from preventing hin,
from manufacturing beer containing
more than one-half of per cent AZ
cohol. and Oh government appeals
from judgments restraining officials
from interfering with the ManitowoC
PRODUCTS Company. Wisconsin con
ccrn. In the manufacture Of beer
containing 2.o0 per cent alcohol by
William d. Guthrie. appearing in
the former case. contendcd that by
INC words concurrent power to en-
force, Congress intended for the
Federal government and the state
to enforce prohibition with Identical
legislation; and that the States were
TO give their approval to enforce
ment legislation before becoming cf-
fcctivc.
Loss of state Control.
I'VE submit that the State Lcsis-
laturcs must have understood tina
the amendment provided for concur
rent rent, enforccment as thc amendment
struction now urged by the govern
ment would result In practically the
complete loss of State control. II
we might wcli call IL a point OF
fair conduct and morality"
Yelled charges that evidence was
being manufactured" >y prohibit
tion supporters 10 influence tho court
! In. connection with it's consideration
OF the prohibition question were
made by Mr.. Guthrie. He called at
by Representative Volstcad. author
OF the enforcement act. ,appearing
in the Congressional Record last
week. giving what was in the minds
Committee in 1917 while framing
the prohibition amendment. : These
views, he said. conflict vitality with
other statements made by Various
tion with the amendment.
Mr.. Guthrie also referred 10 let
tors written by Senator'S possibly
for the Anti Saloon League" and OK
then thought"
Defends Wi.consin ESQ Inv.
Ralph w. Jackson representing
tho Manitowoc Products Company,
took the position that by concur
rent power" Congress intended that
the Federal enforcement act WAS I'd
he supreme until n, State had enacted
enforcement legislation, when the
latter was to have complete control
in enforcing prohibition within it's
borders. He also defended the valid :
ity OF the Muiberger act. permitting
the manufacture in wisconsin OF
beer containing $50 per cent alco-
hol. which he contended was not in
toxicatinG.
when Wisconsin ratified the pro :
hibition amendment" he said. lit ha d
no Idea that Il was to he prohibited
from cnactinE legislation relative to
Misunderstanding beverages"
Replying to Mr.. Jackson. Solicitor
General King argued that were that
thcory of concurrent power true,
then the States would have exclusive
power. adding that In his opinion
the term meant that both Congress
and the States were given authority
to enact legislation for the enforce
mcnt of prohibition, but neither had
power to stand in the others way
regarding enforcement. Assistant
Attorney General Fricrson contended
that the Supreme Courts recent opin
Ion in appeals brought by Jacob Rup
pert. the New York brewer, sustain
ing Congress- authority under its
war powers to prescribe the maxi
mum alcoholic content of beverages
virtually settled the validity OF that
nrnyiSion