Five Mile Beach weekly journal., 1922-02-17
VAN NESS ACT MADE VOID
Errors Courts IneOmprehensible De-
cision SustainS Every Feature OF the
Law and Lets the BOOtleggers Go
Free; New Bill Drawn and Intro
duced in Legislature.
From the American Issue.)

AANt
duced in Legislature.
From the American Issue.)
The New Jersey Court of Errors and
Appeals, on February I'd, announced
its decision in the cases reviewing the
unanimous decision of the Supreme
Court approving the con~titutionality
of the Van Ness act.
The decision was an anomoly in
Jurisprudence in that it sustained
every feature of the Van Ness act UNI
der review, considered in detail, but
refused to sustain the lower court on
the proposition as a whole.
Another unique feature was the fail
ure of the court, as a whole, to file
an opinion, although four individual
justices did so. There is nothing on
record. therefore, to explain the
grounds upon which the court bases
it's decision.
Four votes were taken on special
propositions, as follows:
SuStains NO-Jury Feature
"First-Does the Prohibition en-
forcement act, commonly called the
Van Ness act, which makes any per-
son who violates any of its provisions
a '~disorderly person. triable by a
magistrate without a jury, and on con-
viction, liable to sentence of confine-
ment in the workhouse, penitentiary
or common jail, for a period not to
exceed six months, or to pay a fine not
to exceed $500, or both, violate Article
/. Section Z, of the Constitution of
New Jersey, which provides, inter ALA,
that the right of trial by jury shall re-
main ~inviolate, and also Section 8,
which provides, inter ALA, that no per-
son shall be held to answer for a GRIM
inal offense, unless upon the present.
ment or indictment of a grand jury
On this question five judges voted
in the affirmative and six in the mega
tive, as follows:
Yes-Chancellor Walker, Justices
Swayze and Kalisch, Judges Ackerson
and Van Buskirk.
No-Chief Justice Gummere, JUS
tees Parker, Black and Katzenbach,
Judges White and Williams.
Definition as "Crime" in YOlstead Act
Does Not Govern State Law
"Second-Does the provision of the
Van Ness act which declares by neces-
sary implication that violation of the
Eighteenth Amendment to the federal
Constitution shall be deemed to be
disorderly act az distinguished from
those which are criminal in their ma
ture, render it invalid to that extent,
by reason of the fact that prior to its
enactment the Congress of the United
States, in pursuance of the provision
of the second section of that amend
ment giving to the Congress and the
several states concurrent power to n
force it by appropriate legislation, had
already declared by necessary impli-
cation in and by the federal statute,
commonly known as the Volstead act,
that a person who violated any pro-
vision of the amendment should be
deemed guilty of a crime?"
On this question the court divided
by a Go vote, as follows:
Yes-Chief Justice Gummere, JUS
tees Swayze and Kalisch, Judges
Gardner, Ackerson and Van Buskirk.
No-Chancellor Walker, Justices
Parker, Black and Katzenbach, Judges
White and Williams.
Title Is Proper
"Third-Does the Van Ness, act vio-
late Article 4, Section Z, paragraph 4
of the Constitution of New Jersey,
which provides that every law shall
embrace but one subject, and that
shall be expressed in the title?"
Yes-Chancellor Walker and Justice
Kalisch-2.
No-Chief Justice Gummere, Jus
tees Swayze, Parker, Black and Kat
zenbach, Judges White, Williams, Ack-
erson and Van Buskirk-9.
Proper to Assign Duties OF Magistrate
to Judges
"Four-Do the provisions of the
Van Ness act making the judges of
the Court of Common Pleas, and, in
certain circumstances, the justices of
the Supreme Court, magistrates and
requiring them to enforce the act in
given proceedings, impose upon them
duties which do not inhere in, or APP
pertain to, their judicial office, and are
such provisions therefore void?'
Yes-Justices Kalisch and Katzen-
bach-2.
No-Chancellor Walker, Chief JUS
tice Gummere, Justices Swayze, Par
ker and Black, Judges White, Will
liams, Ackerson, Van Buskirk-9.
Court Reverses Its Own Decisions
The fifth vote was on the general
questions of sustaining or reversing
the convictions on the three test cases
under review, and it resulted in a vote
of 8 TO reverse and 4 to affirm.
The judges voting to reverse were
Chancellor Walker, Chief Justice Gum
mere, Justices Swayze, Kalisch and