The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1931-02-24
CLARK ATTACK
ON DRY LAWS
IS OvERRULED
Supreme Courts Decision
VerifieS Validity of
18th Amendment.
FINDING IS UNANIMOUS
Ratification Mode Upheld;
Congress Has Sole
Discretion.
BIZ United Press

BIZ United Press
WASHINGTON, Feb. "A. The
supreme court unanimously upheld
the validity OF the prohibition
amendment today
The court in a decision on a gov
eminent appeal from the famous de-
cision of Federal Judge William
Clark of New Jersey upheld in all
respects the ratification of the
eighteenth amendment by legis-
latureS of the states.
Justice Owen ]. Roberts an
nounced the reversal of ClarkS de-
ciSion by a united bench of eight
members of the highest court in
the land. Chief Justice Hughes did
not sit in the case.
Congress, the court ruled, has sole
discretion as to whether a conSti-
tutional amendment is to be rati-
fled by state conventions or legis-
latures. The point at issue was the
contention that ratification of the
eighteenth amendment by state leg
islatures instead of by constitu-
tional convention, was improper.
Reads From Memory
Justice Roberts read the decision
as II from memory, seldom glancing
at his printed paper as he addressed
the crowded courtroom.
Judge Clark of New Jersey in the
case involving two men charged with
beer running, held that because it
affected individual rights the eight
zenith amendment should have been
ratified by state convention instead
of legislatures.
1.-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
'can not be DONE" he pronounced.
Has No Limited Operation
1.-THE tenth amendment was in
tended to confirm the understanding
of the people at the time the Con-
stitution was adopted that powers
not granted to the United States
were reserved to the states or to
the people," he said.
1T added nothing to the instru-
ment as originally ratified and has
no limited and special operation, as
is contended, upon the peoples dele
cation by Article 5 of certain func-
tons to the congress-
He referred here 20 the argument
that the tenth amendment adopted
after the Constitution itself was
had q limiting effect de-
signed to prevent rights being taken
from the people through acts of
their legislatures in ratifying con-
amendments.
Referring to the governments
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 eighteenth appenees
reply that all these, save the
dealt solely with gov
means and machinery
rather than with the rights of the
individual citizen.
Citizens Rights Touched
But we think that several
touch rights of the
citizens. Notably the thirteenth,
fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth and
seventeenth and in view of this.
weight is to be given to the fact
that these were adopted by the
method now attacked.
For these reasons we reiterate
what was said in the national pro-
hibition cases, that the amendment
by lawful proposal and ratification
has become a part of the Constitu-
ton
The order of the court below is
The ruling of Judge Clark. one Of
the youngest jurists on the federal
becnh, was handed down several
weeks ago in Newark. It held the
amendment was insert
ed improperly into the Constitution
it was ratified by state leg
lslatures instead of by state conven-
tons.
The government immediately
brought its appeal from the Clark
ruling, indicating its fears that the
decision would have harmful ef-
feet on enforcement, by asking an
early hearing.
The court broke all precedents
to set arguments down for Jan. 81.
Test Case Brought Up
The case involved William H.
Sprague, clerk of Vantage town
ship, New Jersey, and William M.
Howey, a farmer, who were accused
Of selling a small quantity of
liquor. 1t was prosecuted by Phillip
Forman, United States attorney.
Selling an opportunity of making
q test case, an imposing array of
defense attorneys was brought into
the case.
1t included Frederic M. P. Pearse
Of Newark, N. j.; Selden Bacon,
Daniel F. Cohalan, former supreme
court justice Of New York, and
Julius H. Cohen. They presented
the attack upon the validity Of the
method Of adoption Of the eight
zenith amendment which opened
the way for Justice Clark to make