The American issue. [volume] (Westerville, Ohio) 1912-19??, 1931-06-01

Chilli IIldb Inc power 10 duOpG dIIleIu-
nents was confined to the subjects COW
cred by the original constitution and did
not permit the supIementing of the con-
stitution by the addition of new subjects.
Therefore since the original constitution
had given to the federal constitution no
control over the subject of intoxicating
liquors, the attempt to confer sucn au-
thority by the Eighteenth Amendment was
invalid.
This was one of the arguments of Elihu
Root before the supreme court against the
Eighteenth Amendment. He contended,
with dire predictions, that if the Eight
zenith Amendment was valid, "the gov
eminent of the United States as we have
known it will have ceased to exist; and
that it was a Legislative authority hitner-
to unknown to the constitution and not
subject to any of its limitations"
This is also the contention of Nicholas
Murray Butler, whose statement to the
Judiciary committee reads: "The question
in my mind has nothing whatever TO do
with liquor or the liquor traffic. 1t is
simply and solely question OF govern
ment and the protection of the underlying
principles upon which the constitution OF
the United States rested from 1889 until
1920. My attitude would be just the same
if the matter of the Eighteenth Amend
ment were cotton, or wheat or meat prod
ucts. That amendment is an impertinent
invasion of the constitution, and in no
sense an amendment of it, if the word
amendment be properly used"
Others advanced other reasons in sup
port of the same objection, but the two
men above quoted are the most prominent
advocates of that particular proposition,
and their arguments are sufficient basis
for our discussion.
SUPREME COURT UNMOVED
1. In the first place it ought to be a
sufficient answer to say that the supreme
court was absolutely unmoved and inter
rified by Mr. Roots prediction of implied
calamity in the event that the amend
ment was approved, and the court held
that the amendment to the constitution
was a proper exercise of the power to
amend Another and later attack ema-
mated from a New Jersey federal court in
whose opinion the law was held null and
void because the amendment was not ap-
proved by conventions of the several
states instead of by the legislatures there
Of The United States supreme court has
just reversed that latest opinion and held
again that the amendment was legally
ratified Therefore, that the amendment
was legally submitted and legally ratified
40 1tO 1Ol4SCl oil OEOAl VI SfOAA Co NTOoS"VO'H1N
question.
If the vets were loyal enough to their
government to accept as final the deci-
Sions of the supreme court, no further ar
gument would be necessary But the vets
declare the amendment is wrong, and that
the court and congress and the leglsla-
lures of the forty-siX ratifying states are
all mistaken as to what will promote the
general welfare, and in an appeal to the
people they are using their old and re-
jected arguments as reasons for repeal.
CONSTITUTION EXISTS
2. In the second place, since the SUI
preme court found way to uphold the
validity of this statement, it may be true,
as Mr. Root predicted, that the govern
ment of the United States as we have
known it, has ceased to exist but still we
have the old constitution, with all its
splendid achievement and with its glory
undimmed, and we have in addition
another provision which, when and as
properly applied in the years to come, will
further promote the general welfare and
secure more of the blessings of liberty,
thus advancing still further the declared
purposes of the constitution. We have
taken a step in advance and not back
ward, assthe vets assert. "a
8. And there is only one way whereby
under the present constitution the vets
can lawfully repeal the amendment, and
that is by legal compliance with the pro-
Vy;cioy,c IF Article " of the constitution