The Waterbury Democrat., 1931-02-24
Validity of Dry
 Law Is Upheld
fContinued from Page D

Justice Roberts read the decision as if from memory, seldom glanclnS
 at his printed paper.
 Judge Clark of New Jersey i'll the case involving two men charged with beer running, held that because it affected individual rights the 18th amendment should have been rati- fled by state convention instead Of legislatures. "The choice of the mode of rati-
 fication lies in the sole discretion Of
 congress-" Roberts, junior member of the court. said.
 Changing the fifth article of the constitution to require such amend
 ments to be made by conventions
 "cannot be done". he pronounced.
 "The 10th amendment was in- tended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the consti- tuition was adopted that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the states or to the people," he said. "It added nothing to the Instrument as originally rati- fled and has no limited and special operation, as is contended upon the peoples delegation by article five of certain functions to the congress" He referred here to the argument that the 10th amendment adopted after the constitution itself was adopted had a limiting effect de-
 signed to prevent rights being taken from the people through acts of their legislatures in ratifying consti- tutional amendments.
 Referring to the governments ar euments and contentious in the case, the courts opinion said: "The United States relies upon the fact that every amendment has been adopted by the method pursued in
 respect of the 18th. Appellees reply that all these save the 18th dealt solely with governmental means and machinery rather than with the rights of the individual citizen.
 '."But We think that several amend
 ments touch rights of the citizens
 Notably the T3th. 14th. 18th. 18th and 18th. and in view of this weight is to be given to the fact that these were adopted by the method now at- tackled.
 "For these reasons we reiterate what was said in the national prohi- bition cases. that the "amendment by lawful proposal and ratification has become part of the constitu- tion.'
 "The order of the court below is revarsed.'
 The ruling of Judge Clark was handed 6own several weeks ago in Newark. IN J. It held the 18th amendment was improperly inserted into the constitution because 1t was
 ratified by state legislatures instead of by state conventions.
 It was the first ruling by any low CT court that either the amendment or the Volstead act were irregular
 since immediately after the law was passed. One of the numerous test cases brought in 1920 as part of the so-called Rhode Island" or national prohibition cases was brought on ap- peal from a Wisconsin court ruling which held the amendment invalid.
 This was disposed of at that time. It did not involve the issues of the
 Clark decision.
 The supreme court persistently re- fused to te.ke jurisdiction of any ap-
 peals involving validity of the amendment or the Volstead act since that time. It pointed out the pre- vious court ruling as sufficient to
 settle any questions regarding ts attitude.
 When Judge Clark. one of the youngest Irrists on the federal bench, held contrary to the supreme