Show NH COURT CONSIDERS I BOOZE BOOZEr r V ASHINGTON ASHINGTON March 29 W. W ty The national prohibition 1 amendment mei dment and the V olst ad act were under Itt bk k again today before the United ril d States supreme court on con con- tit grounds ground I Attorney A General M McCran Cran of ot New florney re ers W presented the states states state s appeal ga st both the amendment and the nt cement act He alleged that ot of were an unwarranted Invasion of t he police powers of ot the state tate and hat tat the enforcement act was an legal t attempt by congress to control nd regulate Intrastate commerce ve If it the amendment amendment should be beel belet let el I constitutional he declared the nf act was Invalid except excepts n s ep s so far as it mad madd provision for tor the theof theon on rol of ot Interstate commerce TS T'S CONTENTIONS Root counsel for Christian Christan el ei a New Jersey brewer r d that the amendment was wasmer mer nice ere le legislation and as u such It hadeen had hadeen een een presented presented under ender color of ot an I to the constitution He I Ion on that it was an Invalid i hen a in the constitution purposely Britten en into the constitution to bind It Me generations who might seek to reef themselves from an unpopular nd rid san an undesirable restriction He ont intended also that although forty forty- x z states had ratified the amendment twenty five states had complied compiled Ith their own constitutions ns In laking such ratifications the other verj one one y-one states having failed to the amendment to the refer refer- ld idum in provided In such states For Foris ils is reason he said the amendment id td not hot been legally ratified He as- as rt that the writing Into the con- con It on of ot the prohibition amend amend- ent ant f. f was wu an at assault on the of ot a a. republican form of ot govern govern- enl en in n that it weakened the right of majority to make and repeal laws E ENSE OF MEASURES T The P p constitutionality of ot both the le e ment dment and the enforce- enforce act was upheld by both Solicitor ne 1 King and Assistant Attorney ne al FrIerson They contended it t. t the supreme court had no Juris juris- I I i diction as to the constitutionality of the amendment because the attacks on it raised political questions that were not Justiciable They held that It was not necessary to submit the amendment to a referendum In the states having such because the constitution constitution con con- con con- I fon Itself provides the way in which states were to ratify amendments amendments amendments amend amend- ments to the constitution and this method had been complied with Other phases of ot the fight against the amendment and the act will come before the supreme court April 12 when the court will hoe hoar r argument In a case from Ohio making a direct issue of ot the constitutionality of ot the referendum laws of ot that state and cases from New York Tork and California California Cali Call fornia attacking th the punitive and seizure features of ot the enforcement act ML o 8 |