South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1920-06-08
COURT RULES
PROHIBITION
LAW IS VALID
"Wets" Dealt Death Blow by
Supreme Courts Dry
Act Decisions.
By Associated Press

bE ASSOClate1 PRESS
WASHINGTON, June The pro-
hibition amendment and the Vol
stead act were held constitutional by
the supreme court, Monday, in an
unanimous decision.
While attorneys for the interests
attacking the two measures were
granted permission 10 ile motions
for rehearings. the decision was re-
garded generally as striking a death
blow to the hopes of the vets.
Sweeping Decision.
The courts opinion, rendered by
Justice Van Deventer was sweeping.
Ii held that the amendment not
only within the amending power
conferred by the federal constitu-
tiOn but was legally proposed and
now was the law of the land. While
recognizing that congress has limi-
tations in respect TO the enforce
ment of laws regarding beverages,
the court held those limits were not
transcended in the enactment of the
enforcement act restricting alcoholic
content of intoXicants to one-half Of
one percent
While New York, New Jersey and
Wisconsin acts permitting manufac-
ture and sale Of beverages OF more
than one-half Of one percent alco-
hOlic content were not directly in
volved, the decision was interpreted
as invalidating them. The court said
the first section Of the amendment
of its own force 'invalidates any
legislative act whether by con-
gress, by a state legislature. or by a
territorial assembly-which autho-
| rizes or sanctions what the section
prohibits.
Concurrent Powers.
Concurrent powers granted by the
amendment TO the federal and state
| governments to enforce prohibition.
| the court further held does not en-
able congress or the several states
to defeat or thwart prohibition but
only to enforce it by appropriate
means
The decision Of the court was set
| forth in II conclusions covering sew
en- proceedings. These proceedings
| included original suits brought by
| the state OF Hhode Island directly
attacking the constitutionality Of the
amendment.
While agreeing as TO the validity
of the amendment and enforcement
act. Justices McKenna and Clarke
dissented from the majority inter
probation of the concurrent power
| Of federal and state governments to
enforce prohibition. Chief Justice
White held that the court should
set forth the reasoning for it's de-
| cision. He did this in a supple
mental opinion.
Brief Statement.
Justice McReynolds, in a brief
statement declared he was OF the
I opinion that it was impossible TO
say at this time what construction
should be given to the amendment
He added that because Of the be-
wilderment which the amendment
creates" he preferred 10 remain free
10 consider the multitude Of ques-
tions which will inevitably arise
| and demand solution"
The decision set at rest conten-
| tions previously laid before the
court that the amendment could not
affect alcoholic liquors manufac-
tured prior TO Jan. 16, when the
amendment became effective. The
court held that the amendment ap-
piled TO such liquors the same as
any proIuced after that time.
Regarding arguments to the ef-
| feet that state having cOnStitu-
| tional referendum provisions could
not have been said TO have ratified
| the amendment until IL had been
submitted 10 the voters. the court
cited its opinion rendered last Mon
day In the Ohio referendum case
in which II held that such referen-
dun provisions do not apply 10 fed
eral amendments.
Only VrOhfhfrfn7 % TN
portance remains undecided 1t Is
an appeal from New York involving
the constiturionality of portions Of
| the enforcement act prohibiting
storage in warehouses Of intoxicat-
| ing liquors designed for personal
use. This case was argued this
| spring but with the courts adjourn
ment Monday for the summer car
not be decided before October, at
| the earliest.