Evening star., 1926-03-27
The Proposed Referendum.

Senator Edges proposal for ma
tfonal referendum on the Volstead act
is a new idea in Federal Government
It has no constitutional or legislative
precedent. If approved by Congress II
will be an innovation that may lead to
a material modification of the law
making process.
This proposal is made to meet the
objection that the newspaper polls
recently taken on the subject OF prom
bition and enforcement do not reflect
public opinion. It provides that lin
order that the Congress may obtain
information necessary for the appro-
pirate exercise of its legislative pow
ers under the eighteenth amendment
a national referendum shall be held on
this question:
Shall the Congress amend the ma
tional prohibition act commonly
known as the Nolstead act) 50 as to al
low the manufacture, sale, transporta-
ton and possession of beverages con-
tanning as great an amount of alcohol
as is lawful under the Constitution,
provided that such amendments shall
not interfere With the constitutional
powers of the several States to legis-
late with respect to intoxicating
liquors as each State may deem
proper.
In other words, it is proposed that
Congress shall ask the country what
to do on the score of amendments to
the enforcement act. There is no
proposition to repeal the eighteenth
amendment. Only Congress can ini-
tiate such move short of a constitu-
tional convention. Repeal would en-
tail q two-thirds vote in each house
and confirmation by three-fourths of
the State Legislatures.
referendum such as is proposed
binding. 1t would be merely advisory.
And it would advise only in Il vague
manr~r to indicate yes or mo" on
the broad proposition, Shall the Con
gress amend the national prohibition
act?" There are no specifications as
to the character of the amendment
save the broad one, which is open to
argument, that the amendment shall,
if approved by popular vote, make the
enforcement act conform to the limit
OF the eighteenth amendment.
This is not a clear-cut submission
of the enforcement question to the
people. 1t is not Il submission of the
prohibition question. There can, in
deed, be no submission of the prohibi
ton question short of a direct pro-
posal to repeal the amendment and
that can reach the people only after
it has been adopted by a two-thirds
vote of the two houses of Congress. In
such a case a majority vote for re-
peal from three-fpurths of the States
would effect that result.
The difficulty of securing q referen-
dun under existing law-inasmuch as
there is in fact no law for such a
moot vote-is shown by the provision
of the resolution that in case any
State fails to act to provide for the
submission of the question at the next
general election of Congress the Post
master General and the Secretary of
Commerce are to conduct the referen-
dunn in that State through the post
off1ces,< the Bureau of the Census or
such other agencies within their re-
spective jurisdictions and control as
they may jointly select" Thus it is
possible that the so-called referendum
will be in part a direct vote at the
polls and in part a canvass of the
people through Federal agencies.
There is no possible assurance of a
complete vote in such circumstances.
Reference of an underlined question
of possible legislation to the people
has never before been proposed Sc
riously Congress has heretofore been
jealous of its powers constitutionally
granted, and it is not likely that it
will now yield its prerogative of ini-
tiation to referendum, especially as
there is no assurance of d complete
response by the voters.