Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1921-03-22
LAW
|SATTACKED AGAIN;
HARDING IS QUOTED

WASHINGTON, March 21.-A pro-
vision of the prohibition amend
ment originally proposed by Presi-
dent Harding while a senator makes
it invalid, it was claimed in a Sec
ond big attack on the constitution
ality of the dry laws in briefs filed
with the supreme court today.
The section of the constitutional
amendment, which it is claimed in
.alidates all the notifications by the
;,ates, provides that the addition to
lie constitution would not be opera
tive unless ratified by three-fourths
of the states within seven years,
after being submitted to them.
The claim is that congress had no
power to place such a time limita-
ton on the notifications by the
states. The brief for the wet in
terests asserts that the supreme
court in upholding the amendment
and the Volstead act last June did
not pass on this phase of. its valid
ity.
President Harding, while in the
senate. proposed the time limitation
on the notifications, saying his ap-
proval of Ethe resolution submitting
the amendment to the states depend
ed on such a provision being added.
He originally proposed three years,
but later it was increased to seven.
The new attack was made in the
case of j. J. Dillon, San Francisco,
who sought arrest to test the law.
He was employed by a drayage COM
pany for transporting a cask of wine
through the streets without permit
from prohibition officers.
Levi Cooke, for several years coun-
sci for the liquor interests, is the
leading attorney in the attack.
The law will be defended in argu-
ments before the court by a woman,
Annette Abbot Adams. assistant at
torney general.
The brief of the anti-prohibiti
lists in attacking the Harding pro-
vision limiting the notifications of
the states to seven years says:
Section was introduced into the
senate joint resolution on August L,
1917, as an amendment offered from
the floor by the Hon. Warren G.
Harding. then a senator from Ohio.
Mr.. Harding then said:
"'Mr President, 1 have offered
the amendment as representing the
judgment of a number of senator's
On the floor, with a view to placing
a limitation on the tendency of the
prohibition amendment to the con-
stitution, I do it because that policy
is involved in my consent to sup
port the pending resolution
Mr.. Harding clearly stated that
ing the amendment was conditional
on this provision being approved.
Senator Borah, Senator Brande--
gee and Senator Cummins, insisted
upon the invalidity of the. pro
vision as being an attempt. in the
posing an amendment to the con-
stitution to alter by mere congress
sional action the constitutional rule
governing constitutional amend
mentS.
Summary of Contention
Summarizing the contentious the
anti-prohibition brief says:
There is no authority found in
the constitution by which two-thirds
of both houses may submit an
amendment, some members assent
ing only if extra constitutional
terms anu COuulIlOIS dl Z ciNluCu "
what might alone be proposed va
lidity; or under the terms of their
resolution may restrict the action OF
the states in their deliberation there
on; or as in this transaction may
submit an amendment as necessary
in their judgment only if the states
act for ratification within lime
limit, or upon any other condition
subject to which the congress makes
the submission as then only neces-
sary in their judgment
without this extra const1tutlonaI
provision, it is impossible to say
that two-thirds of quorum of the
house and senate would have pro-
posed the amendment, and we have
the positive statement of Senator
amendment was conditional upon the
Limitation to the states being en-
grated upon the proposal"
Assistant + ttorney General Adams
in her brief for the government
claims the prohibition amendment
cannot be declared invalid because
of section 3.
She says:
"The amendment having been rati.
fed by the requisite number OF
states within the time limitation pro
vided in section three it is unimpor-
tant whether that section is valid
or invalid. 1t is not to be pre-
sumed that the intention of con-
gress in fixing the Limitation was
to defeat ratification; rather it may
be assumed that the proponents of
the limitation clause desired the
early ratification which was had:
But even if section three were held
to have been a restriction beyond
the power of congress to impose, it
does not follow that it's invalidity
would render the whole proposition
nugatory."
If the states are dissatisfied with
prohibition, they can undo it under
the constitution, Miss Adams added.