The Cordova daily times., 1922-03-24
WASHINGTON, March 24.

proceedings instituted by Charles S.. Fairchild of New York, for himself and in behalf of the American Con- sittutional League, to enjoin the Secretary of State from issuing and the Attorney General from enforcing a proclamation declaring the 'ratifi- cation of the amendment, and by Oscar Lesser and other citizens of Maryland, constituting an organiza- tion known as the Maryland League for State Defense.' The former pro ceedings were based on the ground that the amendment had NOT been validly adopted, and the latter that the amendment was Unconstitutional PROGRESS OF ISSUE IN
 STATE AND U. S. COURTS
 The Federal courts in the District of Columbia and the State courts in Maryland, where the cases, respec lively, were originally brought ruled against the objections to the amend ment. In the oral arguments in the Supreme Court in the Fairch1ld case, the government contended that the Secretary of State having issued the ratification proclamation there was nothings to restrain, and that the case therefore became moot, NOT presenting a controversy for judic- fal decision In the Lesser case, the government acknowledged that the proceedings had been instituted by voters who had sufficient interest to warrant their presence in court, but that the issue raised was political, one for decision by Congres or for settlement in some other avenue than by adjuciation in the courts. While the State of Maryland had refused to ratify the amendments, it was pointed out the State also refused to question it's constitutionality.
 POWER OF CONGRESS
 AssAlLED AS ILLEGAL
 The power of Congress to pro- pose the amendment to the State Legislatures for ratification was as sailed by it's opponents on the ground tha the people reserved to themselves in their State constitutions the right to regulate sufferage, and that the Federal government legally could NOT have anything whatever to do with the changing the sovereign power" embodied in sufferage quail fications.
 "The people were not setting up an amending agency for their own de- struction," the opponents contend- ed, asserting that in limiting Feder- al jurisdiction the sovereign peo- ple" did not intend that their agents condusting the Federal government, shauld have the power to destroy them. Following this line of argu- ment it was argued that the people alone by amendments to their State constitutions or by a constitutional convention called for the purpose could extend or abridge their sov- ereignty.
 RACE SUFFRAGE AMENDMENT "REsULT OF REVOLUTION"
 The Fifteenth or race sufferage amendment, adopted after the war between the states, was not a pre- cedent. it was asserted, by the op- moments because it was an express sion of the "results of revolution, asuuiesced in by all the people, for the reconstruction" of the Nation, by extending to the negro race free dom and equality" for which the war was fought" Any other method "for permanently" registering the memorable decree of the civil war would have been equally effective" it was argued.
 Should it be held, notwithstanding these objections, that Congress had constitutional power to submit the amendment for ratification by State legislatures, the prescribed three fourths of the legislatures required for constitutional ratification, did not give their approval, the opponents of women's suffrage insisted naming Missouri, Tennessee and West Vir- ginia, counted among the thirty-six states necessary for ratification, as not have legally acted.
 DIFFERENTIATION OF LAW
 BEYOND COURTS~POWER
 Declaring the issues presented were political" seeking to obtain from the court an opinion" of "con- struction" on the contentious raised, the Government asserted that the