Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-02-25
HIGH COURT CALM
IN LIQUOR DECISION
Amendment Upheld by JUS
tees With Usual Poise
in Crowded Room.
BY MARK SULLIVAN.


Tuesdays event in the Supreme Court
had a curious kind of atmosphere and
elevation The court was passing upon
a decision of lower court, which lat
ter court had neld the prohibition
amendment unconstitutional If the
Supreme Court should now sustain this
decision it would be about the most ex-
plosively revolutionary thing that has
happened in legal or political circles for
a long time. On the other hand, If the
Supreme Court should reverse the de-
cision of the lower court, then the
status would be that nothing whatever
had happened.
The particular kind of expectancy
that such situation may give rise to
was in the minds of the spectators and
lawyers who filled the room as the Su-
preme Court resumed it's sittings after
three weeks of recess. 1t had been felt
throughout Washington that the court
would probably have used the leisure of
its recess for studying the question and
that it would take account of the i'm
portance of the question by handing
down its decision at its first sitting after
recess. Consequently the court room
was crowded and a long line of hope
full spectators trailed along the corridor
outside.
Court Has Usual Calm.
If, however, there was this kind Of
anticipation, or any kind of tenSeness
whatever among the spectators, there
was nothing whatever unusual IN the
attitude of the court. With the usual
solemnity the crier gave his "Oyez!
Oyer! Oyez!" The members of the
court, black-robad, all with faces re-
flecting power, filed in and took their
seats with a dignity which makes these
events the most elevated ceremonial
now existing in America.
With no unusualness of manner what
ever, the youngest and most recent
member of the court, owen J. Roberts
of Pennsylvania, began to speak with
the even though very powerful reso-
nance that Is the habitual quality of his
voice. Presently the spectators real
lied that he was giving the decision of
the court on the prohibition case. That
this decision was given first was the
only possible sign of unusualneSs con-
ferred upon it. On the other hand, the
decision was being given by the most
junior member of the court The one
incident Cancelled the other, and the
truth is the court handled this case
precisely as it would have handled any
other appeal on any other kind of ques-
ton from any other jurisdiction. The
court had not the faintest sign of self
consciousness or unusualness.
1t became apparent, after Justice
Roberts had spoken a few sentences,
that he was reversing the decision of
the lower court. In other words, he
was holding the prohibition amendment
to have been validity ratified. This was
really what the spectators. what all
Washington, expected. Probably there
was not in Washington any person of
any thought1ulness who believed that
the Supreme Court could possibly sus-
tain the sensational decision that was
handed down by Judge William Clark
of the District Court of Northern New
Jersey 10 weeks ago.
Reversal Was Expected.
The expectation that Judge Clark
would be reversed was literally uni
versal. The expectation prevalent in
Washington is illustrated by a story
current here. The story was promised
upon the theory that If the prohibition
amendment is invalid, then for the
same reason the thirteenth amendment
outlawing slavery must be likewise in
valid. Into this setting, Washington
fitted a story about an ancient colored
man born in slavery who found things
going badly with him in this Winters
depression and who walked into Judge
Clark's court in Newark, N j., to ask
the judge for some kind of writ or
other variety of potent paper which
would restore the venerable Negro to
the comforts of slavery with no rent
to pay and food free.
This feeling that the decision of the
New Jersey judge could not stand was
universal The writer of
this dispatch includes in his acquaint-
ance the wettest lawyers-wettest IN
the political not the bibulous sense-in
Washington. They are lawyers who,
during 10 years past, have explored
every legal road, lane, blind alley or
to find a tenable means for
arguing that the prohibition amend
ment is invalid. Even such lawyers did
not believe in the decision handed down
in January by the New Jersey Judge
and all such lawyers fully expected the