| OCR Text |
Show SWEEPS AWAY LAST HOPE OFTHE WETS 6UPREME COURT DECISION UP. HOLDS VALIDITY OF THE DRY AMENDMENT. Amendment Not Only Came Within Amending Powers Conferred By Constitution, But Was Lawfully Proposed and is Now Law. Washington. The prohibition amendment and tliu enforcement act were held constitutional by the su-lirenie su-lirenie court In u unanimous decision rendered June 7. While attorneys for the interests attacking at-tacking the two measures were granted grant-ed permission to file motions for re-hearings, re-hearings, the decision was regarded generally as striking a death blow to the hopes of the wets. The court's opinion, rendered by Justice Van Devanter, was sweeping. It held that tiie amendment not only came within the amending powers conferred by the federal constitution, but was lawfully proposed and now was law. While recognizing congress had limitations as to the enforcement of laws regarding beverages, the court held those limits were not transcended in the enactment of the enforcement act restricting the alcoholic content of intoxicants to one-half of 1 per cent While New York, New Jersey and Wisconsin acts permitting the mauu-facture mauu-facture and sale of beverages of more than one-half of 1 per cent .alcoholic content were not directly involved, the 7ecision was Interpreted as invalidating invalidat-ing them. The court said the first section of the amendment by its own force invalidates any act, "whether by congress, by a state legislature or by a territorial assembly," which authorizes au-thorizes or sanctions what the section prohibits. Concurrent power granted by the amendment to federal and s':ate governments gov-ernments to enforce prohibition, the court further held, "does not enable congress or the several states to de- I feat or thwart prohibition, but only to enforce it by appropriate means." The decision was set forth in eleveu conclusions, covering seven proceedings. proceed-ings. These proceedings included original suits brought by Rhode Island directly attacking the constitutionality of the amendment. |
