Evening star., 1938-05-25

18th amendment was put into the
Constitution Far from it. The 21St
amendment has not only restored to
the States their right to deal with the
liquor traffic, but it has deprived the
Federal Government of many rights
1t used to have with respect to regu-
lation of the liquor trade.
On reading the latest opinion which
was rendered by unanimous Supreme
Court, one discovers that the so-called
commerce clause-the one that gives
merce among the States and with for
eign countries-has been virtually re-
pealed or abolished in so far as liquor
traffic is concerned. This means that
the State of New York, for example,
can put up an embargo on liquor man
ufactured in New Jersey or Ohio and
yet permit its own residents to buy
liquor manufactured in New York
State. In other words, far from af-
fecting the question of States desire
to be wet or dry, as the case may be,
a State may discriminate against an
other States products and favor its
own.
There is a larger question involved.
1t is whether New York State could
ban all liquor from Europe and insist
that its citizens buy only the home
made products. On its face, it would
seem that this directly conflicts with
an article in the Constitution which
says that no State may levy tax or
import duty. or put up any barrier
against importation of goods. This is
true with respect to all articles of COM
merce except liquor, which now, being
covered by the 21st amendment is ap-
parently, in the judgment of the Su-
preme Court. to be treated wholly by
the 2lst amendment.
Supersedes All Other Parts.
In other words, it would seem that
an amendment covering importation
OF particular article of commerce,
specifically named in a constitutional
amendment, supersedes all other parts
Of the Constitution relating to COM
merce or business. Justice Brandeis,
in delivering the opinion of the Su-
preme Court this week upholding
Minnesota law which barred importa-
tions from other States under certain
conditions, said:
Joseph Triner Corp insists that
the statute is unconstitutional because
1t permits unreasonable discrimination
between imported brands. That the
registered brands of other foreign
manufacturers may be imported. while
its unregistered brands may not be, al
though identical in kind, ingredients,
and quality We are asked to limit
the power conferred by the amend
ment (2lst) so that only those impor-
tations may be forbidden which, in
the opinion of the court violate a
reasonable regulation of the liquor
traffic. To do so would, as stated
in the Youngs Market case, involve
not a construction of the amendment,
but rewriting of it.
What Mr.. Brandeis referred to as
the 'Young's Market case" was de-
cision of the Supreme Court of the
United States year ago upholding
California law which Disseminated as
between products made inside and out
side the State, law which has since
been repealed. The principle enunci-
ated in the California case wiped out
not only the commerce clause but the
so-called equal protection clause,
known as the 14th amendment.
Reversal Was Expected.
It had been believed, however, that
when the Supreme Court got clearer
case of discrimination it might am
plify or even reverse the Young's
Market case. Reiteration of the prin-
ciple now must mean that, so far as
constitutional law is concerned, the
2lst amendment is paramount and
that no other parts of the Constitu-
ton relating to commerce any longer