OCR Text |
Show NATIONAL PROHIBITION COMES WITH COURT DECISION VICTORY MOST COMPLETE FOR THE DRYS. Amendment Declared Valid and the Volstead Enforcement Act Also Approved By tho Country's Highost Tribunal Decree Is Handed Down After Months of Deliberation. WA8HINOTON, D. C, .luno 7. The United States supremo court to-ilny to-ilny upheld constitutional prohibition. In n sweeping decision tho court do-elarcd do-elarcd Hint the. prohibition amendment amend-ment lo tho constitution is valid nnd held that tho Volstead net enforcing it is constitutional. Tho court's notion no-tion means that the Volstead law prohibiting pro-hibiting tho salo of any beverage containing con-taining 1 per cent or more of nlco-liol nlco-liol must bo cnforchl in every stare of the union, regardless of whether the stalo has ratified tho amendment. State Inws providing higher alcoholic conlcnl, such as havo been enacted in Now Jersey, Wisconsin and in Ithodc Island, nrc nullified. The decision dispels the hopo of the brewing intercuts inter-cuts Hint tlm properties could be used for tho manufacture of light beers nnd wines, and thus minimlro tho lowed due to national prohibition. The court's dooree rendered nflcr three months of legal attacks on the Ian by the Inpior interests and (ho wot Mate, is n cuiiiplct.' victors l,or the federal government ana the pro-Mbit pro-Mbit ion force. It is mo f.ir reti'lilng Hint it settles onoe for nil that im-tionnl im-tionnl prohibition Mill stiinil. Up-holding Up-holding the amendment, the court staled proliiliition is n valid sultjeet for an addition to the constitution and that such action doe not conflict with other article of that historic document. The constitutionality of tho Volstead law was based on the general principle laid down by Chief Justice Mnndinll moro than it Iiuii-: Iiuii-: dreil years ago that where stale law conflict with fednral statutes, tho federal laws arc supreme. A blanket decision was riwonletl" by the court on seven siills. Those were brought by or appealed from six slate Ithodc Island, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Missouri anil Kentucky. Ilhodo Isliind and New Jersey, ns states, instituted proceedings in the court lo have the amendment declared de-clared void and lo eujohi the enforce-Itiuitjof enforce-Itiuitjof tlui Volstead law .within theii limits. The npjteul were on oases in-i in-i stitnled in lower courts by ChrjUUnn roigviisan, it .Now .Jersey brewing eoronitioii( (I forgo l I)cniey, it llostoii liquor ileW; the Kt. Louis lire wing association; the Ketitueky Distillemw and Witrvhoiis eoiiimny, Umisvillc, and the Mmfctowoe I'm-duels I'm-duels company, .Milwaukee, Wis, The government won all but the Milwaukee Mil-waukee eae in tlijM lower courts, and ciiikHiieutly IimIhn'm action nf firms the judgment in all the oilier below. The Milwaukee decision, rendered by I'tlenil .ludge (leiger, was rvverncd. In the New .lorney and Ithode Island slate iiel.oiw the nmUon of the federal fed-eral government to dismisti the canon were graiitml. Tlii court's opinion liHik up all tho contentions of the wet forces in detail and then declared Hint lliere was no legal foundation for them. Chief Justice WhltM sulci hu regretted that the court had not seen Ut to outline tho steps which, led up to its decision. Hu iiidicuttd, howevvr, that ho was not dissenting from the opinion. Ho said congress in tho eighteenth amendment should luiN o dei)ned intoxicating liipiors. Justice Vandevnnter read the opinion opin-ion of tlo court. After pointing out the court was coiaemed with sucn eiuen involving tho vnlUlily of the umendiiient and of certain geuenil features of the Volstead law, Jiutiiu Vaudovnnter nnnounced lliu conclusions conclu-sions of tho court on tho vunous points raised. Follow ing is the decision: de-cision: l'lrst Tho adoption by both houses I of coiigruMi, each by n two-thirds vote, of it joint rtMolutiuu proposing an amendmciit to tho constitution suft'iuiuntly shows that (he iropimil was deeuirixl uocoiwiry by till who oted tor it. An expruwt deelurutlou that they regarded it us nevewuiry is not UMentinl, None of tho retentions reten-tions vvlierchy imoramuuduieutswere proposed contained stiih u tlwlura-tion. tlwlura-tion. Second Tho two-thirds vote In emli liiuiKi, vvliloh is rcxpnrtxl in proposing pro-posing iiu uiiieudmeut, is a vote ol two-thirds of tho memlienhip ptuxtent assuming the presence, ot u (piuruin mid not it vote of two-thirds of entire en-tire membership, present ami absent. Third The ruferwulum provisions of blato constitutions uml stututes cannot be appijied consistently with tho constitution of tho United Stutos in the ratification or rojeetiou ot umendiiieuts to it. Fourth Tho prohibition of Hw iiianuiucture, side, transportation, mi-portntion mi-portntion and uxportation of intoxicating intoxi-cating liipiors, for bevurngo pin poses, as embodied lit the eighteenth amendment, amend-ment, is within the ower to amend reserved by Art. 5 of tho constitution, Fifth That amendment by lawful proposul and ratification has become, u part of tho constitution and must be respected and given effjoct tho same as thcr provisions of that in- ' strumont Binding On All. Sixth- Tho first section of the amendment tho one embodying the prohibition is operative throughout tho entire territorial limits of tho United States, Winds nil legislative bodies, courts, public officers and individuals in-dividuals within those limits, and of itsown forco invnljdates every legislative legis-lative act wlfolhcr by congrew, by n state legislature or by a tcrri'onal asscmbl.v which niithones or ssne-tions ssne-tions what the suction prohibits. Seventh The second section of the amendment -the one declaring Mho congress and the several state shall hnvo concurrent power to enforce this article bv appropriate legation' dots not enable congress or the several sev-eral states to defeat or thwart the prohibition, hut on!) to enforce it by appropriate means. Kighth The words 'concurrent power' in that section do not moan joint )ower, or require tlutt Icgislo-Hon Icgislo-Hon thereunder by congress, to be effective, ef-fective, shall be approved or mc-tioned mc-tioned b the several state or any of thcni, nor do Wifiy iiimii that the K)wer to cnlorco is divided between congress and the several states nlong Iho lines which separate or distinguish foreign slid ihtarslnle commerce from intrastate affiant. Ninth The jwwer confided to congress con-gress b that section, while not exclusive ex-clusive is territorial!) coextensive with the prohibition of the l'irs section, sec-tion, embrace nmnufaeture ami o'licr intrastate transactions as well ut. importation, im-portation, eMirltion nnit inlersiatu traffic, and is jn no wise dependent on or aftecteil by aelion or insction on the mrt of tho several ntotct or any of them. IV'tilh That jxiwer may be exerted iignlust the disNMMtl for bovcriue pur-Hsos pur-Hsos of inpior maiiufaclurel before tho nmetidliielit becHiue etfeclive, jllst as it iiim.v bfHgHiimt stilxep((it insnii-fact insnii-fact u re lor IIhnw uro. In either ease it is a constitutional inandHte or prtthibitum Hist is being enforced. Klevenlh While recognising there nro liinilx bcjoiid which congress cannot go in treating beverage a within its iowcr of enfineiieiit, we think those limits are mtt Iransceiided by the provision of the Volstead act, wherein Inpior containing as much ns oiiH-half of 1 per cent of alcohol by volume, and fit for use for beverage bever-age purtoe, are treated hs within that Niwer. (living effect to these conclusions, wo dUMHe of the eHes as follows: In Nos. Ull and 3D (iiricinally brotiKht hi this count) tip) bills are , dismismHl. , In No. 711 1 (from a dceree granting , injiiiiilion) the deereo U revcrwd. In Nos. W0 7M, TBS and Kki (from ikorm refusing iiijuuetions) the do-. do-. onviTare affirniwl. |