The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1922-02-27
In the Fairchild Case, Gov
ernment Contended That
the Secretary of State
Having Issued Ratfica-
tion Proclamation There
Was Nothing to Re-
strain.

woman suffrage or 10th amendment
was to-day declared constitutional BY
the supreme court. The supreme court
dismissed for want Of jurisdiction the
suit brought by Charles S. Fairchild OF
New York, who sought to challenge
the constitutionality of the amend
ment.
The opinion of the court was deliy-
cred by Justice Brandeis.
The 10th amendment to the constitu-
ton was challenged in the supreme
court in proceedings instituted by
Charles S. Fairchild of New York, for
himself and in behalf of the American
constitutional league, to enjoin the
secretary of state from issuing and the
attorney general from enforcinga proc
lamation declaring the ratification Of
The amendment, and by Oscar Lesser
and other citizens Of Maryland, consti
tuting an organization known as the
Maryland League for State Defense I
The former proceedings were based on
The ground that the amendment had
act been validly adopted, and the lat
Ter that the amendment was unconsti
!utional.
The federal courts in the District of
columbia and the state courts in Mary
and, where the cases, respectively. were
originally brought, ruled against the
,bjections to the amendment. In the
,ral arguments in the supreme court
N the Fairchild case, the government
.ontended that the secretary of state !
having issued the ratification procla-
nation there was nothing to restrain,
ind the case therefore became moot, |
not presenting controversy for judi
,ial decision.
In the Lesser case, the government
acknowledged that the proceedings had
peen instituted by voters who had suf-
icient interest to warrant their pres
nee in court, but that the issue raised
vas political, one for decision by Con-
.ress OF for settlement in some other
tvenue than by adjudication in the
,ourts. While the state of Maryland
lad refused to ratify the amendment,
I was pointed out the state also re-
used to question its constitutionality
The power of Congress to propose
he amendment to the state legisla-
nres for ratification was assailed by its
opponents on the ground that the peo-
,le reserved to themselves in their
tate constitutions the right to regu-
ate suffrage, and that the federal gov /
srnment legally could net have any
lining whatever to do with changing /,
he sovereign power embodied in /
mirage qualifications. {
The people we're not setting up an :
Intending agency for their own de-
the opponents contended,
sserting that in limiting federal juris-
liction the sovereign people" did not
intend that their agents conducting !.
he federal government, should have :
be power to destroy them. Following o
his line of argument it was argued 2
bat the people alone by amendments b
0 their state institutions or by con. n
titutionsl convention called for the c
urpose could extend or abridge their ?
pvereignty. r
The Is or race suffrage amendment. .
dopfed after the war between the r
iates, vas not a precedent, il was as
srfed. by the opponents because il
A. an expression Of the results OF
.volntion." acquiesccd in by all the
eople. for the Reconstruction Of the "
alton. by extending TO the negro race q
freedom and equality for which the Il
uar vas fought Any other method
Tor permanently registering the mex Il
rable decree Of the Civil war would
ave been equally effective il was
rrtied. In
Should il be held. Notwithstanding
49, ohiections. the Congress had con
stutiensl power 20 submit the amend
eut for ratification By state iegisla-
ne. the prescribed three -fourths of i
y legislatures required for cnnstifu-
oral ratifcAfion. did not give their y,
,rrofsL - opponents ~ woman suf-
a-a insisfet. naming Missouri. Ten p