Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-01-18
Amendment Never Properly
Ratified, He Declares, Rails
ing Point of Order.
RATIFICATION UNDER
SECTION 3 LACKING
Terms of Measure Itself Make It
Void, New York Representa-
tive Asserts.
BY the Associated Press.

valid Representative La Guardia, Re-
publican, New York, today raised a
point of order against appropriations for
prohibition enforcement included in the
pending Treasury-Post Office supply bill
The New Yorker commended that the
amendment had never been properly
ratified, basng this assertion upon the
third section of the amendment, which
says that the amendment shall be in
operative unless it shall have been rati-
fed as an amendment to the Constitu-
ton by the Legislatures Of the several
States, as provided in the Constitution,
within seven years from the date of the
submission thereof to the States by the
| Congress
This section, he said, came into force
! when the amendment as whole was
| first ratified by So States. Coming into
force at that time he interpreted it as
| STIMULATING then that it must again be
ratified by SO States or at the expiration
of the seven-year period the entire
amendment became imperative. Ten
States, he said, had gone through what
he saw as the necessary procedure OF
second ratification.
Must Be Construed"
Asserting that I'VE cannot ignore Sec
ton or brush it aside as mean
ingless," La Guardia said, we cannot
accept the theory, which some will urge,
| that it had reference to the ratifica-
| ton of the amendment and has now no
| force or effect"
| The section must be construed, he
said, with the same rules of construc-
| ton applicable to other sections OF
| the amendment The mere fact, he
| continued, that the section described
| the method of "re-ratification to be the
same as that required for original rat
| ification indicates that section is
novel provision in our Constitution, lin
| ting the life of the eighteenth amend
ment unless certain contingencies In
the future shall have taken place"
La Guardia described how the orig
inal amendment, now section 5, was
| offered in the Senate by the late SEN
ator Harding of Ohio. providing date
| before which the amendment must be
ratified.
Doubt as to Effect.
"There was great doubt" the New
Yorker said, lin the Senate as well as IN
the House as to the force and erect
of section as part of the Constitution
! the amendment be ratified. Congress
voted for it with its eyes open. The
amendment was submitted to the States
under the provisions of the Constitution
| as 1t then existed. If this particular
amendment had not been ratified WITHIN
seven years there was nothing to pre-
vent the States from ratifying It later.
so that to say it is applicable only
/ TO the date or time of original submls-
/ OF
not bound to any such limitation until
section 3 became a part of the Constl-
tuition itself That being so, 1t cannot
be said then that it Is applicable 10
| something that has already happened.
Section necessarily means that the
article must again be ratified as therein
| provided in the period therein PROVIDED
or else become imperative as therein
provided"
Among others discussing prohibition
Representative Britten, Republican. Illi-
nois one of the leaders of the House
wet group, said in a statement that II
| the dry leaders were sincere they would
seek a test vote" on modification OF
the Volstead act instead of repeal OF
the amendment. He added:
THE vote should be on modification
of the Volstead act so as to permit the
manufacture and sale of beer and light
wines and the consumption of the same
away from the place of purchase. The
| saloon must not return. l challenge
the drys in Congress to request this
vote"
Speeding up Federal court procedure
by abandoning the grand jury system,
except where necessity requires, is sug-
gested by Chairman Norris OF the Sem
ate judiciary committee.
Counter Proposition.
Senator Norris offers this proposition
as a counter proposal to the recon-
mendation of President Hoover'S Law
Enforcement Commission for trials by
United States commissioners of petty
offenders, which he Is inclined to regard
as unconstitutional.
The voluminous recommendations OF
the Law Enforcement Commission are
before Senator Norris committee and
will come up there for early consider
alton.
the recommendation for transfer of the
prohibition enforcement service from
the Treasury to the Justice Department
a proposal that has long been before
Congress.
However. there are some troubles
ahead in the Senate for the many other
suggestions for strengthening the dry
law, and out of it all there is little
| certainty LL1dL Quiet CIldH LilS IIdhSleI
measure will get through at this ses-
sion.
Would Require Amendment.
The Norris proposal for abandonment
of the grand jury system would require
constitutional amendment. He feels
however, that it offers solution for
the crowded court dockets. He would
not abolish the grand jury system, but
he would permit prosecution of offend
ers upon information by the district at
torneys, leaving 1t within the discretion
of the Judge to order the grand Jury
hearings for indictments.
I'VE have such a law in Nebraska, y
Senator Norris explained. LAS a, Judge
there 1 found it very satisfactory Not
once did l have to order a grand jury
to meet in order to make sure that the
prosecuting attorney did his work thor
oughly.'
, The law Enforcement Commission
would have Congress define certain law
violations as coming within petty Of
lenses, this permitting trial by United
States commissioners. Norris believes
however, the difficulties in the way OF
making such a definition are manifold
| Moreover, he does not want any steI
taken which will menace the constitu-
tinnal right of ALI men IN trial nv itiY-1J