The American issue. [volume] (Westerville, Ohio) 1912-19??, 1921-04-22
Y. SUPERIOR COURT
|SkES IMPORTANT RULING
Court Holds Eighteenth Amend
ment. Invalidated the Brooks
High License Law
GROG LICENSE ILLEGAL
Brooks Law as 1t Now Stands Is
Stronger Than Sprouts
Amendment

warrant i'll law for the issuance of
saloon licenses in Pennsylvania. The
opinion held that the adoption of the
Eighteenth Amendment invalidated
the license feature of the Brooks high
license law OF the state and that IL
censes granted under the Brooks law
since the Prohibition Amendment be-
came effective were issued illegally.
The opinion further holds that while
the license part oil the law is invali-
dated by the National Constitution
the remainder of the law relating to
law enforcement and penalties is in
full effect.
Thus the Brooks law as it now
stands is much stronger than the
Brooks law amendment backed by
Governor Sproul and slated for pass
age at this session of the Legislature
The so-called enforcement law backed
by the Governor retains the license
feature of the Brooks law and it is
for this reason that the Anti-Saloon
League and other temperance organi-
z2tions are not favorable to its Ell
actment and which by the same
token the liquor interests OF the state
are we'll pleased with it. The law en-
forcement measure backed by the
Anti-Saloon League and allied tenn
perance forces had no license pro-
vision in it.
The Superior Court decision was
made March 5 in a Fayette county
case. The court reviews at length the
situation arising from the adoption OF
a Prohibition Amendment and the
passage of the Nolstead Act and is
decisive in its ruling that the lcens-
ing of saloons is illegal. 1t is equally
clear in its ruling that the penal pro-
visions remain unaffected, with the
result that the state no longer can
authorize the sale OF liquor or near
liquor but can punish violations by
virtue OF its own statutes.
There now remains no authority to
sell drop of liquor in Pennsylvania,
license or no license, and the Penn
sylvania legal departments have the
power to enforce Prohibition Ample
and drastic penal provisions not only
already exist in the Brooks law but
remain as actively operative now as
the day they were approved The
opinion was given by Judge Hender-
son.
Concurrent Power to Enforce"
In discussing the relation of the
federal law to the state law the court
says:
ut is not to be questioned that
prior to the federal amendment the
regulation or prohibition oil the sale
OF liquors except as effected by the
interstate commerce laws was within
the police power of the state; power
not conferred on the United States
except as incidental to some other
power conferred on it by the Con-
stitution. Has this power been taken
away by the amendment or merely
limited in the scope of its operation?
If wholly superseded and annulled
that result must be found in the Ian
guage of the amendment or in the
necessary implication arising there
from. That the first section declar-
ing Prohibition is obligatory through
out the United States and therefore
renders imperative every legislative
act permitting what the section pro-
hibits, may be seen by an inspection
OF its terms.
when regard is had to the object
of the amendment and the reasonable
means to be adopted for its enforce
that the purpose in the use of the
words concurrent power to enforce"
was to continue in the several states
the authority heretofore existing un-
der the police power to establish Pro-
sfibition and to confer on the federal
government a like power which had
not heretofore existed Congress
and the Legislatures of the state are
placed on the same footing.
"If it had been the intention of the
people in amending their Constitu-
ton to assume exclusive control of
the subject this would have been done
by appropriate words or by comforting
on Congress exclusive authority to
legislate on the subject.
States Still Have police Power"
"There is thus left to the states the
same police power with respect to
liquors which heretofore existed, sub
ject. however to the prohibitions Of
the amendment We are constrained
to hold, therefore, that the authority
conferred on Congress by the Eight
zenith Amendment is not exclusive
and that by the express language of
the amendment like authority OF en-