The Bismarck tribune., 1933-04-18

Hiqh Court Hears
Repeal Arguments

Assistant Attorney Con erai
Says Present State Laws
Will Stand Alone
Arguments that the repeal Of the
state constitutional provision for pro-
hibition struck out all prohibition en-
forcement statutes enacted by the
state legislature were presented be-
for North Dakota state supreme court
Tuesday, after which the court took
the case under advisement.
M. G Fredricks, jamestown attor-
ney, told the court that by adoption
OF the initiated constitutional amend
ment repeating the dry clause in the
state constitution at the last Nov
ember election, the people also re-
pealed the legislative prohibition en-
actments.
p. o. sathre, assistant attorney
general. after briefly outlining the
opposition to Fredricks' contentious.
told the court II don't believe we
should waste the time Of the court
arguing this proposition"
Russell p. Chase, states attorney Of
Stutsman county where the case
originated, filed q motion to quash,
and this was taken under considera-
tion by the court.
The case Is the outgrowth of
charges against Christ Aipperspach,
jamestown, charged with possession
OF two one-pint bottles Of beer con-
tanning 80 per cent Of alcohol by
weight. He has been bound over to
the next term Of district court and
action was instituted by Fredricks'
IN the supreme court applying for
a writ Of habeas corpus.
Says Voters Did Il
The voters, Fredricks told the
court, by repeating the dry clause In
the constitution I'm no uncertain
terms declared that the policy ex-
pressed In the original constitution
had outlived its usefulness and that
1t should be and was unequivocally
repealed"
He expressed confidence "that the
laws no longer exist and that II traf-
fic in intoxicating liquor Is to be
controlled by authority of the state
machinery, new legislation on the
subject will have to be adopted
Fredricks contended that the pro-
hibition enforcement statutes enacted
ty the legislature were passed in
obedience to the mandate contained
in the state constitution. He MAIN
tanned the laws enacted under 1t be-
came a part Of the constitution and
repeal Of the constitutional provision
automatically repealed the statutes.
In passing liquor enforcement laws,
he said, the legislature became . mere
functionary in obdience to the consti-
tutional mandate. Questioning Fred
ricks in his argument that the legis-
lature In passing prohibition enforce
ment laws was merely acting as q
flunky In carrying out the mandate
Of the people expressed in the consti-
tuition" Justice A. M. Chrisitanson
that II that argument Is
correct the federal beer act would be
unconstitutional.
New Brew Il Mild
Fredricks replied he had tried the
hree-point-two beer legalized by con-
gress and found 1t Notwithstanding.
and that he had tried out home brew
and It had me standing on my head"
Satire argued that he was unable
to find single argument to sustain
the position taken by Fredricks.
1T makes no difference whether
congress passed the beer bill as far
as this case Is concerned" he said.
There Is not single case where re-
peal Of constitutional clause also re.
pealed the statutes.
IT the people desire to repeal the
prohibition laws they can do so. They
can come In now and amend. repeal,
or re-enact the laws In any form they
DESIRE"
Sathre argued that Fredricks had
failed to make any showing that the
prohibition laws were wiped out by
repeal Of the state constitutional pro-
vision.
He contended that under policy
power inherent in the state, the legis,-
lature had unquestioned power to pass
prohibition laws and they are in full
force and effect until repealed by af-
firmative legislative enactment or
through initiative measures adopted
by popular vote.
The federal beer bill, sather said.
"is Of no Importance in this case"
III our prohibition statutes are still
In force" he added. "the federal beer
bill can have no effect at least until
July l when the state beer bill takes
effect. II the prohibition statutes
were repealed by the repeal Of article
20 Of the constitution, then there are
no restrictions in this state and the
federal beer bill was made effective
when It was passed by congress"