| Show I I I l I I I RATIFICATION RA TION BY LEGISLATURE 0 O. K U. U S. S Supreme Courts Court's Opinion Opinion Opinion ion Holds Referendums Un Unconstitutional s' s I Washington June I. I The l. The supreme court In an unanimous opinion toda today held that federal constitutional amendments amend amend- ments ments' cannot be bo submitted to fa popular vote voto for ratification b by states ln having I referendum provisions In their coast coast- The method or of ratifying amendments the court held In lit a a. national power specifically specifically granted b by the tho federal constitution count count- and the tho states ha have hano no authority authority author author- It ity to provide pro otherwise In BO so holdIng hold hold- lag Ing the court declared inoperative e provisions provisions pro pro- visions or of the tho Ohio state constitution authorizing of at federal amendments to a referendum for tor ratification rat rati and overturned o state supreme ecu court urt rt 1 decrees C es 1 dismissing I s in is s i n g I Injunction nj U act Ion proceedings s In a taxpayers taxpayers' suit to en enjoin enjoin en- en join submission ion of or the prohibition and womans woman's suffrage amendments to a n referendum ret ret- vole ote Next to the eases cases involving In the tho va validity aUdit validity va- va Udit of or the prohibition amendment and the enforcement the Ohio referendum cases were cre considered the most important import Import- ant before the supreme mo court Tho The decision does doc not affect the pending prohibition cases casell The rhe courts court's opinion ho however eer puts an end to an any controversy ers as to whether Ohio has ratified both amendments amendments amendments amend amend- ments and puts Ohio definitely ly In the list of states approving each of or the amendments Power to ratify raUf a federal amendment according to the thc courts court's opinion which was rendered b by A Associate Justice Da Day I Is derived from the federal constitution constitution tion and a state has no authority to designate the means of ratification Justice Day Ja said that b by requiring r ratification t to be by by bythe th the e Ic legislatures ish tu res I the tho trainers framer of the constitution meant the reco recognized legislative e bod body In each state stale I Federal Feder Judges s Ruled Washington aNhill ton June 1 Provisions Pro of oC the war Wat revenue re act requiring the President Pres Pres- ident Hn and federal Judges juds to pay an in income income in- in come conic come tn on their salaries were de declared tIe tIe- dared unconstitutional to today a. a b by tho the supreme court in a a. 7 to 2 decision Under the act the President paid on hi his salar salary of or a year car I Continued on PaRe Page 2 I I RATIfiCATION BY S lEGISlATURES OKEH L Continued from Page 1 match n taxes Revenues es nJ- nJ al already ready collected under the Invalid provisIons provisions provisions pro pro- visions will under tho the courts court's decision be refunded b by the treasury Th The Tho supreme courts court's decision lon was on appeal by Federal Judge Walter Evans of or Louisville K KyN Ky from tram lower lover court decrees de decrees decrees de- de crees dismissing a n suit brought by him to recover taxes Involuntarily paid Justice who rendered tho the majority opinion held that t tho e ro revenue revenue rev rev- act violated constitutional provisions provisions provi provi- aone prohibiting tho the diminution of ot such salaries The majority opinion held however that a a. federal Judge was not exempt from tax on his private in income In iii- come corne or on his property property- Justice Holmes rendered a dissentIng dissenting dissenting dissent dissent- ing opinion In which Justice Brandeis concurred Ho lie declared that no reason existed wh why federal judges should be exempted from tho the Income income tax Nor North l Dakotas Dakota's Tax On Corporations Upheld Washington June 1 North North Dakota supreme court dourt decisions holding corporations corporations cor cor- chartered red within the state but located elsewhere to be subject to toa toa toa a state tax lax upon the value of ot their capital stocks were ere upheld today by bythe b bythe the supreme court In deciding deciding- appeals from jud judgments for tor representing represent represent- ent- ent ing InS taxes Imposed against the Ue Cream of ot Y Wheat eat company |
