Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1920-01-27
GOVERNMENT ASKS
FOR DISMISSAL Of
RHODE ISLAND BILL
Attack on Prohibition Re-
sisted - Series of Legal
Moves on Amendment Are
Planned by "WetS"

WASHINGTON, Jan. 26-The gov
eminent in the supreme court today
moved to dismiss Rhode Islands bill
attacking the validity of constitu-
t:onal prohibition.
Argument on this motion is expect
ed to determine whether constitu-
tional prohibition will stand.
Solicitor General King stated the
motion could not be argued until
March, because Rhode Island attor-
neys are not yet ready. A recess of
the court during February will de-
lay it until that time so that
decision cannot be expected before
April.
The court agreed to advance the
appeals from Ohio courts which will
determine whether states by refer
endum can override the action of
state legislatures in ratifying the
constitutional prohibition amend
ment.
The government in its motion to
dismiss the Rhode Island complaint
claimed that it presents no justifia-
BILE matter nor shows sufficient legal
ground for the court to take jurisdic-
ton of the case.
THE facts stated in said bill of
complaint do not set up any cause of
action" the motion says, and there
is no equity in said bill"
The argument of prohibition cases
was assigned for Monday, March 1.
The greatest legal drive against
any law or part of the constitution,
in the history of the country appears
to be looming up IN the many attacks
being prepared against constitutional
prohibition.
Government attorneys today esti-
mated it will be two years before it
will be known definitely whether con-
stitutional prohibition stands on
firm legal foundation, but they hold
out little hope for any fitting OF the
lid" during that time.
Tho attacks on constitutional pro-
hibition are on the Following
grounds:
1. That prohibition is not valid
subject for a constitutional amend
ment and that it has not been legally
adopted.
,. That the Volstead law enforc-
ing it and prohibiting all beverages
containing one-half of 1 per cent of
alcohol or more, is not constitu-
tiona4
Rhode Island Case a
That the amendme cannot
be enforced in any state against its
will. This is to be determined, as
well as the first two questions, in the |
suit brought in the supreme 2ourt by |
Rhode Island.
4. That states by popular refer
endums, can override the actions Of
state legislatures and thus w thdraw
previous ratification of the eigh- !
teenth amendment Ten states have
the referendum and should all re-
verse the legislative action, with the
supreme court upholding the refer
enGum, it would be sufficient to re-
peal the amendment This is the
question now pending in the SUI
supreme court on appeal from the
Ohio supreme court. which sustained
the referendum
3. That some states can be wet by
passing laws increasing the maxi
mum amount OF alcohol permitted in
beverages as New Jersey and Rhode
Island propose to g.
g. That the amendment prohibit
ing only beverages which are IN fact
Intoxicating, and that congress under
the provision of the amendment
; etIlIlIlS IL y llC lISlIL " ass app u
pirate enforcement legislation cam
not arbitrarily prohibit those drinks
which have only a small amount of
alcohol and are not generally held to
be Intoxicating. r.
Z That the liquor interests can
recover heavy compensation from the
government lc-ses caused by pcohibi-
ton.
The Slrreme court Will be asked to
determine all these question and it
is the only body that can 90 so.
\The avenue of attack upon prohi-
bition, most likeIy to $ cceed,
prominent attorney said today, is
through the word concurrent" ap-
pcaring in the amendment. 1t states
that congress and the several states
shall have concurrent power" to
enforce the amendment.
This might be construed to mean
that each s would have to agree
to the beverages that could be pro-
hibited in it's territory" the attorney
said. IF the state desired to allow
light beer and wi to be sold the
court light it had that right
under the amendment. I don't be-
lieve the court would go so far as to
authorize the old we avs in any
state, but it might agree the state
had a right to tilt the lid considera-
bly,"