The Daily Alaska empire. [volume] (Juneau, Alaska) 1926-1964, 1933-10-04
COURT UPHOLDS.
DRY AMENDMENT.
r. EFUSINC WRIT
Judge Alexander Cites SUI
preme Court Decision
in Deciding Case 2
CONTINUED from Page One)

same arguments employed by coun-
sci for the same or almost 1dentl-
cal questions to the Supreme Court
of the United States, and were re-
solved by the court in favor OF
the constitutionality of the amend
ment in question: (See the ar
guments of Mr.. Rice, lawyer and
Mr.. William Marshall Bullittg pag-
es 354 to 800, Inclusive, and that
of Mr.. Elihu Root pages 36l to
379. inclusive). For instance Mr..
Root argues Up. 36l -63-64: The
substantiative and operative part
of the so-called Eighteenth Amend
ment is contained in the first
section. This provision does not
relate to the powers i'Or organi1a-
ton of government, as does an
ordinary Constitutional provision.
on, the contrary, itnis itself an
exercise of the legislative power OF
government, and asdirect pact OF
legislation regulating the conduct
OF life of the individual. The first
question before the court is,ithere-
fore, whether Article v OF 1.-THE
Constitution authorizes any amend
ment which in substance and ef-
feet is merely a police regulation
or statute. ssss"H aoiiee ref ifih'i'
Fl There is plainly distinction
in yiIis respect between the So
called amendment as adopted and
as it would be if it had conferred
POWER upon Congress to prohibit
the use of Intoxicating liquors.
*sssa $50 81 ilgtaXicatls~ 'i'fheU
Trainers Understood Terms
Article VI Of the Constitution
should not be construed to confer
unlimited legislative power upon
the amending authorities. To as
same that 1T does is inconsistent
with the plain provision of Sec
ton of Article OF the oCollsti-
tuition that an legislative powers
herein granted shall he vested IN
a Congress of the United States,
and with the terms of Article "
itself. as the proceedings of the
Constitutional Convention disclose
that the trainers themselves I'M
derstood those terms. The franz
ers undoubtedly regarded the pow
er to amend only as authorizing
the inclusion of matter OF the
same general character as the in
strument or thing to be amended;
and as all the constitutions OF
their day were concerned solely
with the distribution and limita-
ton of the powers of government,
and not with the direct exercises
thereof by the constitution makers
themselves, no amendment OF the
latter sort would have been deem
ed appropriate or germane by
them" Ssrffs''N
Supreme Court Decides
ut is Of no moment whether We
agree or disagree with the argu-
ments quoted. The Supreme Court
of the United Statesy our court
of last resort. has heard these ar
guments and many others. attack
Ing the validity of both the Vol
stead Act and the Eighteenth
Amendment itself, and BY the
conclusions announced for the
court through Mr.. Justice VAN
Devanter, in National Prohibition
Cases at page 1856, Sections 4sand
5. has decided them ali44in bf1is
very terse but thoroughly under
standable languagesotsai'' and
a'Section 4: The prohibition OF
the manufacture, sale transporta :
ton, importation and expectation
of Intoxicating liquor for xeberage
purposes. as embodied in the Etgh-
teenth Amendment. is withirtdthe
power to amend preserved by Ar-
tice v of the Constitution. as
section e5: That amendment
(the Eighteenth Anendmentbt by
lawful proposal and ratification,
has become part OF the Constiuu-
ton, and must be respected and
given effect the same as other
provisions of that instruments
Even Mr.. Justice McKennai and
Mr.. Justice Clarke, in their separ+
ate dissenting opinions, agree with
the conclusions announced IN para
graphs four or five of the Courts
conclusions.
.'Following. therefore, what we
believe to be the law as enunciat-
ed in the foregoing case, the petit
ton for writ of Habeas Corpus
herein will have to be denied.
and IT 10 so ORDERBD."i