Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial. (Wilmington, Del.) 1878-1928, 1920-06-02
RATIFICATION OF DRY
LAW IS HELD VALID
Supreme Court Rules Referendum
on Question is Not
Necessary.

that The ratification cannot be reversed
through referendum action in various
States. The decision also applies TO the
national suffrage amendment, i'll so lar rs
future ratification is concerned
REVERsEs STATE COURT.
Tho decision came in the ease appealed
from the Ohio Supreme Court, where
a referendum was held on the action OF the
Dino Legislature IN TatifyIng the pro-
hihition amendment. The referendum
overturned the action of the General
Assembly in ratiiying the amendment.
hut immediately suits were instituted
bv the drvs To declare the original ratl-
hration by the assembly valid. The Ohio
Supreme Court finally decided the people
through referendum had tho power to
reverse the ratification action Of the Cen
cral Assembly.
In considering the case and reversing
the dcci>ion Of the Ohio court, the SUI
IRENE Court, IN an opinion rendered hN
JlStire, Dav. held that the methods pre-
~,.rihcd in the Constitution for the ratIil-
cation Of IA constitutional amendment
''nCan the same thing TO-DAY ~ when
thr Constitution was adopted The
ratification WAS prescribed 10 hC carried
ont hv the States and no constitutional
revision can amend the provisions OF the
Federal constitution, II was declared
Similar efforts were made through INC
phia referendum laws to oyeriurn the
ratification ut the suffrage amendment.
and the courts finally were called upon
10 decide y in the prohibition case, the
phio supreme Court held that the rcicr-
On .lum applied and that through Il the
original ratification bv the assembly
was reversed. The supreme Count re-
verses this decision and holds the original
ratification valid
The Ohio decision i regarded rs being
III great importance 10 the dry cause.
! Ind been insisted hv tho liberals that
tn. power 90 ratifv tho amendment n
~ or more states Was lodged in the people
through State referendum acts, and ~
several " the states II was known that
.ction 10 rcicr the original legislative
ratification to the people was withheld
pending I he decision IN the OHIO case
Nnv effort nov IL have the ratlhca-
tIou oi the Eighteenth amendment DC
,lrcd invalid because Of Inc referendum
nights existing iii tho several states
would &c entirely tuliC.
hc future Of the amendment and the
fHtu"c oi tho entire dry movement now
,cpcpds entirely upon tho constitutional
tN Of thr amendment ITSELF and upon
tb,, cuustitutionality If tho Nolstcad pro-
lHhItion enforcement law.
JUSTICES ARE UNANIMOUS.
Justice DAY. in rendering the court 5
npininn. which was unanimous SAID ~
The Constitution 81 the United
~.,tcS Wa ordained ~ the people and,
whom duly ratified It became tho on
.1ltutian oi he people of the n'ted
states Tho States surrendered - the
general government the powers speclti-
an, conferred upon the nation and inc
Constitution and tho laws q the mica
state arc tho supreme Law Of the land
lhc trainers q the constitution
realized that il might IN the progress q
ttmc and development q new conuii IONS
teg.irc changes and They intended %
l.ra,tdc an orderly mauner III winch
1esc could hc accomplished. 90 that end
,b., added the Fifth article hiS
.tfiSIe makes provision IL: he propose
81 amendments I'll her hN fwo-t b1ds 81
both houses ui Congress. or an anph
.stton If Legislatures Of twot hird$ 81
~ ~.a+as The proposed change
..n only become effective by ihc ratlh-
tIou az the Legislatures 81 three
f.,,r,hS ii tho Stsic<. OF by convention,
i, : ike number If States he met hoe
ii ratification ! left to tho choice g
Congress. Both mc1hodS 81 ratihcat ioI
b1- IcglSlaf urcS or conventions call iol
action by deliberate aSScmhlaecs repro
sentative of TIM people winch I was a>
s,,mcd would volcc tho viii 81 tho reopc
Ratification might have beer
los. - veto If tho people or TO somt
authority Of government other than iha'
selected The language Of the article i
main and admits Of no doubt III rs Ia
tcrpretation.
ONLY ONE QUESTION
.'The only question Tor Dissemination
* What did tho trainers Of the Con
sruution mean IN requiring rafihca5'oi
IN. ierISlaturcs2 That was not tern
~ ,tncertain meaning when incorporates
INTO the constitution Whist II mean
whom adopted II still means for tho pur
Dosc al interpreted ION A icglsiatuTl
was Then he representative body Whci
made the laws Of the people. nc tern
i often used in the Constitution viii
tins evident meaning.
There can be no question that IN
Trainers Of the Constitution clearly un
,lcr.;ood and carefully used nc term
m which hat instrument referred 10 tn
action of the legislatures 81 the States
When hey intended that direct actfol
IN the people should bc had they ver
no less accurate IN tho Use oi apt phrase
olacr to carry out such purpose.
.;Thc "rgumfnt 10 support tic powe
~ Inc state 10 require the approval b,
tb.. pceplc Of the State Of the ratihcat io1
~ amendments to the Federal ConstHu
non through the medium Of 4 rCtcrcn
.Itin rests uuon the proposition that D
Federal Constitui ion requires ratification
hy tho. legislative action ot the state
through he medium provided at the tim
nf rhc proposed approval OF an amend
ment. This argument = faiiaclous !
disqualification By a state Of Cof
.titutional amendment is not an act {
legislation within the proper sense {
mo word. Il IS but the expression {
thc assent OF the State TO proposed amenC
ment.
1T is true that the power to legisIat
/ in the amendment of the laws Of Stat
is derived from the people OF the Stat
Bur the power to ratify proposed ament
nent 10 the Federal Constitution has I
source in the Federal Constitution. II
III of ratification by the States derive
4 II authority from the Federal Cons
|, tutlon. to which the States and the poop
save alike assented. Any other view mlgf
cad to endless confusion in the manner
ratification Of Federal amendments III
choice Of means Of ratification was WIS.,
+ withheld from conflicting acts ~ u
several States.