Perth Amboy evening news., 1920-03-29
DRY AMENDMENT
REVOLUTIONARY
So Says Attorney General Nc
Gran in Opening Arguments
Against Volstead Dry Law
LEGISLATIVE IN NATURE
Points Raised and Discussed in
Case as InStigated by Gov
ernor Edwards in Pledge
BIZ Special Correspondent.

| the supreme court of the United
States today, Attorney General Thorn
| as F. McCran of New Jersey, argued
the suit instituted at the dictation of
Governor Edwards to have the eigh-
teenth constitutional amendment and
the Volstead enforcement law declar-
ed void and unconstitutional.
McCran filed two briefs with the
highest tribunal in the land, raising
and discussing points, upon which he
began New Jerseys fight to knock
out prohibition.
| The issue of Concurrent power"
received particular attention from the
attorney general in view of the action
of the New Jersey legislature in exar-
cising what it deemed its authority
under the enforcement clause of the
amendment. The eighteenth amend
ment according to McCran is legisla-
tive in nature and revolutionary in
| character and is not a proper amend
ment under article five of the consti-
tuition.
The points upon which McCran
rests his case are:
! j. That the constitution of the
| United States is an instrument enum-
| Grating the powers of the national
government. That the national gov
| ernment has only such limited powers
| as are enumerated in the constitu-
|
piled. That the powers not delegated
to the government of the United
| States are retained to the several
states.
| 2.That the power to amend under
article five of the constitution is a
! power to make only such changes
as relate to the structure and form
of the government, and that altera-
! tions attempting to incorporate there
|
and that the word amendment" has
the limited and defined meaning as
! described in this paragraph.
8. That the so-called eighteenth
amendment is legislative in nature
and revolutionary in character and
is not a proper amendment under ar
ticle five of the constitution.
The brief draws sharp distinction
between matters that are constitutional
and, therefore, fundamental in their
mature, as opposed to matters that are
| Legislative and relate to the safety,
health, morals and welfare of the
people. In this connection the brief
lquotes President Wilson in his work
THE State" as to the danger of in
| lterpreting legislative matters in the
Iconstitution. In this connection 1t
says: zone of the characteristic fea
lures OF our state law Is the threat
ened loss of all real distinction be-
tween constitutional and ordinary law
- y. This principle Is fully recog-
nized in the construction of our federal
constitution, which Is string and fiex-
ible, chiefly because of It's great, its
admirable simplicity and It's strictly
constitutional scope; but con-
lstitution making in the states, espe
cially in the newer states has pro-
ceeded upon no such idea. Not only
do the constitutions of the State go
freely more into detail
They commonly embody regulations
they formulate sumptuary
laws, such as those forbidding the
sale of intoxicating liquors at a score OF
lpoints they enter without hesitation or
misgiving the field, usually reserved
| for the action of Legislative bodies.
The objections to the practice are
so obvious as they are weighty. Gen
eral outlines of organizations, such as
the constitution of the United States
Icontains, may be made to stand with
out essential alteration for long periods
of time.
| 4. That the so-called eighteenth
amendment was not constitutionally
proposed; that the proposal is subject
to judicial review: that congress did
not by two-thirds In number of both
Houses afiirmatively vote for the pro-
posal of the resolution that three
fourths of the states have not ratified
| in the constitutional sense
McCran discussed the effect of a lit
| eral Interpretation of the amendment
which would make the act of New
Jersey operative in New Jersey and
| the act Of the state of Utah to con-
troll the commerce of New York and
San Francisco and the further right
OF the federal government to invade
harQtnfnra
belonging to the state.
Upholding the view of Governor
| Edwards. the attorney general con-
tended that the true construction of
concurrent power is. as claimed by
New Jersey. the right of the federal
government to enforce tho amend
ment, if valid, within its sphere-im-
portation expectation and inter
| commerce. and the right of the state
| to enforce the amendment If valid,
within it's own borders, both the fed
\ eral government and the states being
! limited only by the words "intoxicat-
| ing liquor" MrCran further con-
| tended that the concurrent power
| clause must not be construed in order
that conflict or inconsistency will not
result. This theory of concurrent
| power Is based upon dual form of
| government existing In this country,
| each government being supreme with
| in It's own sphere.
! 5. The national prohibition act is
not appropriate legislation; that there
| Is no right in congress to legislate
outside the words of the amendment.
That the words beverage purposes"
sufficiently describe the limit within
which congress will legislate and that
the term Intoxicating liquors" is it's
own definition. and that the Volstead
law fixing the standard is oppressive
I and unconstitutional That the Vol
stead law is unconstitutional in that
it attempts to interfere with the
right of physicians and druggists to
furnish liquor and that the institu-
tions owned and conducted by the
state of New Jersey are hampered
and restricted by the arbitrary act of
congress The history of the state
of New Jersey and it's relation to the
| federal government, both before and
since the adoption Of the constitution
is discussed and the rights which the
states surrendered for the purpose of
forming a more perfect union are de
tailed at length.
| Continued on page 81