OCR Text |
Show I iTWEf!TY-DNE STATES I OPPOSE RHODE MO Pioneer Prohibition State With J 20 Others Subscribe to Brief ' Filed by Chas. E. Hughes ... -- j WASHINGTON, Iarch 2. Twcnty- ! one states joined with the federal gov- i ,crnment in asking the supreme court ;to dismiss the suit brought by Rhode ;island to test the validity of the fed-jeral fed-jeral prohibition amendment. Subscribing to a brief, filed binaries bi-naries E. Hughes with the court's "permission and which asked dismissal of the case on the grounds that no 'justifiable questions were involved, were Delaware, North Carolina. Ken-luckv, Ken-luckv, Louisiana, Indiana, Alabama, "Maine, Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, -Ofegon,, Kansas. West Virginia. Nevada, Nev-ada, Nebraska,' Montana, North Dakota, Da-kota, South Dakota. Wyoming, Utah and Arizona. R. I. Attorney General Opposes Attorney General Herbert A. Rice, of Rhode Island, who asserted that the government's view that the amendment amend-ment is "unassailable could "only lead to anarchy and oppression." Another development in the proceedings proceed-ings was indefinitely postponed by permission per-mission of the court, of arguments, to .have been heard next Monday, to permit per-mit appeals from Kentucky and "Massachusetts, "Massa-chusetts, involving the amendment's ' validity, to be heard. Assistant Attor ney General Frlerson indicated tonight arguments might be heard March 15. Hughes Makes Statement In asking permission to file the brief, Mr. Hughe3 told the court that officials of nineteen of the 21 states .had communicated with him directly relative to opposing the suit while the governors of the, other two, Nevada; and Kansas, had given him authority to include them. "Rhode Island," Mr. Hughessaid in his brief, "does not bring its bill of cmplaint to enforce any property right or any interest of the state which can bo regarded as the proper subject of "judicial consideration. If this court may consider the question whether an amendment not expressly prohibited by the constitution can validly be adopted, it is submitted that there is nothing in the nature of the eighteenth amendment which exposes it to the clnrgo of invalidity. Bill of Complaint Extravagant Idea "We submit that the conception involved in-volved in the bill of complaint, that an amendment duly submitted by congress con-gress on the vote of two-thirds of each house, and duly ratified by the legislatures legis-latures of throe-fourths of the states is still subject to judicial review and may be held for naught through judicial judi-cial action by "virtue of a process of implied restrictions upon the amending amend-ing power is a conception of the most ex.lravagant character and opposed to the fundamental principles of our gov-j gov-j eminent. No principle of judicial nc-i jtion can possibly be , Invoked for sus-j jtainlng such an authority. I J "The truth is," the brief concluded,! ; "that there is nothing left but a ques-i jtion of political policy with which this court has no concern." j Attorney General Rice in his brief declared the prohibition amendment to I be revolutionary and a direct invn-: ision of jurisdiction and power of the: I states. " . j no 1 |