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

with the announcement OF United States
District Judge William Clark, of New Jer-
sey, thai the Eighteenth Amendment was
invalid. have, upon sober reflection burst
nd left them more convinced than ever
Of the futility Of attempting to shorter
cult the Eighteenth Amendment by court
action. Lawyers who have expressed them
selves regardless of their views upon the
merits Of prohibition have with practical
unanimity agreed that Judge Clarks con-
tention will not stand a careful scrutiny
by the United States supreme court The
department of justice is to be commended
for seeking prompt review by that tri-
bunal
The correctness of Judge Clarks opn-
ion turns upon. or at least involves, two
provisions of the constitution of the
United States. These are Article v pro-
yiding for amendments which as far as
pertinent, reads:
THE congress. whenever wo-thirds Of
both houses shall deem it necessary, shall
propose amendments to this constitution,
or, on the application Of the legislatures
of two-thirds of the several states, shall
call a convention for proposing amend
ments, which, in either case. shall be valid
to all intents and purposes, as part of this
constitution, when ratified by the legisa
lures of three-fourths of the several states,
or by conventions of three-fourths there
of, As THE ONE OR THE OTHER
MODE OF RATIFICATION MAY BE
PROPOSED BY CONGRESS-"
and the tenth amendment, which reads:
The powers not delegated to the United
States by the constitution. nor prohibited
by it to the states are reserved to the
states respectively, or to the people,
I'd al Uin11fnnOtl1
Amendment invalid because congress sub
mitted it for ratification to the legisla-
lures OF the states rather than to conven-
tions in the states, Apparently his reason
ing is predicated upon the theory that at
the time of the adoption of The eonStitu-
ton the usual machinery for dealing with
constitutional changes was 4 constitution
al convention: that there is a differ
ence in constitutional amendments and
any amendment, like the Eighteenth,
which operates directly upon individuals,
must be submitted to the only agency
recognized BY political science when the
constitution was adopted as the accepted
method Of passing upon such constitu-
tional changes; that this theory of po-
litical science must have been ineorpo-
rated in The constitution of the United
States and should be considered in inter
preting the meaning of Article V proyid-
ing for its amendment.
1t IS respectfully submitted that judge
Clark's ruling IS unsound for the follow
ing reasons:
The supreme court settled the validity
of the Eighteenth Amendment ten years
ago. IN 1920 il the national prohibition
cases, 253 U. s. $50, it declared:
THE prohibition amendment to the
federal constitution by lawful proposal
and ratification has become part OF that
constitution, and must be respected and
given effect the same as other provisions
of that instrument"
The supreme court of the United States
in Hawke VS.. Smith 253 u. S. 221, express
~ held that the method of ratification Of
constitutional amendments is left to the
choice of congress. The precise question
in that case was the right Of The people in
the states to submit to popular referen-
dun the proposed Eighteenth Amend
ment to the federal constitution pursuant
10 the provisions of state constitutions or
statutes. Concerning Article V the court
declared:
This article makes provision for the
proposal of amendments either by two
thirds of both houses of congress-. or on
application of the legislatures of two
thirds of the states: thus securing delib
GRAFTON and consideration before any
change can be proposed. The proposed
change can only become effective by the
ratification of the legislatures of three