Palisadian. [volume] (Cliffside Park, N.J.) 1906-current, 1920-06-05
WET REFERENDUM
DECIDED ILLEGAL
Supreme Court Rules Changes in
Constitution Cannot Go to
Popular Vote.
RATIFICATION IS UPHELD.
Decision Voids Vote in Ohio Against
Rattle ation-Biow to Fight on
! Prohibition-Enforc Act
Cases Undecided.

WashingtOn.-The Supreme Court
erative in so far as they affect the
ratification Of amendments to the Fed
eral Constitution. This decision was
handed down In connection with the
Ohio dry amendment case, overturn-
ling an opinion Of the highest court of
that state.
Provisions of the War Revenue Act
requiring the President and all Fed
eral judges to pay an income tax on
their salaries were also declared I'M
constitutional by the court in to 2
decision. The majority opinion re-
quired about an hour for delivery and
was one Of the longest rendered by the
court In recent years.
The Supreme Court also refused to
interfere with decisions of the North
Dakota Supreme Court declaring con-
stitutional amendments and statutes to
carry into effect an industrial pro-
era min North Dakota and permit
ting state bond issues to finance the
enterprises.
After brief executive conference
following the rendering Of opinions
the court recessed. While the reason
for this was not stated, 1t was under
stood to have been due to the pending
proceedings growing out Of the ap-
pOintment Of receiver by the court
in the Oklahoma Texas boundary con-
troversy involving rich oil lands In the
Red River Valley. A number Of pro-
tests have been filed with the court
asking for a modification Of the in
junction issued in that connection by
the court.
The action Of the court in the Ohio
dry amendment case Is another nail In
the coffin of John Barleycorn. 1t re-
moves the last possible chance of
eliminating the Prohibition Amend
ment through the courts. The vets are
notably discouraged and think 1t means
that the court Is against their position
generally, though the sanguine ones
still hope the Volstead act will be
knocked out.
In the Ohio case the Supreme Court
VI
for determination Is what did the
trainers Of the Constitution mean in
requiring ratification by legislatures"
The case before the Supreme Court
was a writ of error to reverse judy
ment Of the Supreme Court of Ohio
affirming judgment of the Court of
Appeals Of Franklin county, which
affirmed a Judgment Of the Court Of
Common Pleas of that county. The
suit by George S. Hawke, plaintiff in
error, versus Harvey G. Smith, secre-
tary of state of Ohio, in the Common
Pleas Court, was to enJoin him from
discharging his duties in respect to
the ratification resolution. The pur-
pose was to keep the secretary of
state of Ohio from formally notifying
the secretary of state at Washington
that the Legislature" had ratified
the Eighteenth amendment
The decision knocks one prop from
under the contentious Of the opponents
Of national prohibition. Ohio attacked
the Eighteenth amendment on the
ground that ratification by the legisla-
ture was insufficient and that the vot-
ers must pass on the proposed amend
ment.
II this contention had been upheld
the amendment would have been set
aside as number of other states with
referendum clauses were not permitted
to vote on prohibition.
The decision is but one Of several
which must be handed before the en-
tire question Of prohibition enforce
ment can be said to have been settled
by the highest court.