njf
44
J '
June, 1920 - ,
The Commoner
13
J. Barleycorn js Dead
WET REFERENDUM DECLARED JT
IjEGAXi
The Supreme Court of the United States
held on June 1 that referendum laws are
Inoperative in bo far as they affect the rati
fication of amendments to tho Federal Con
stitution. This decision was handed down
in connection with the Ohio Dry Amend
ment case, overturning an opinion of the
highest court of that state.
A Washington dispatch, dated June 7, says:
Tho prohibition amendment and the enforcement
net were held constitutional by 'the supreme court
today in a unanimous decision.' While attorneys
for tho interests attacking- the two measures
were granted permission to file motions for re
hearings, the decision was regarded generally as
Btriking a death Llowto thehopes of tho wets.
The court's opinion, rendered'by Justice Van De
vanter, was sweeping. It held that the amend
ment not only came within tho amending powers
conferred by the federal constitution, but was
lawfully proposed and now was law. While
recognizing congress has limitations as to the
enforcement of laws regarding beverages, the
court held those limits were not transcended
in the enactment of the enforcement act restrict
ing alcoholic content of intoxicants to one-half
per cent.
While New York, New Jersey and Wisconsin
acts permitting manufacture and sale of bever
ages of more than one-half per cent alcoholic
content were not directly involved, the decision
was interpreted as invalidating them. The court
said the first section of the amendment of its
own force "invalidates any legislative act,
whether by congress, by a state legislature, or by
a territorial assembly, which authorizes or
sanctions what, the section prohibits."
Concurrent 'power granted by the amendment
to federal and 'state governments to enforce pro
hibition, the court further held, "does not en
able congress or the sever'oj states to defeat
or thwart prohibition but only to enforce it by
appropriate means."
The decision was set forth in eleven con
cusions covering7 seven proceedings. The pro
ceedings included original suits brought by
each by two .?,irl!i0n by. both hou,,os ot ongros.
necessary by all who voted for it. An cxnross
declaration that they regarded it as necessary s
not essential. None of tho resolutions whereby
S docSUfiSS1 Wer proposed confined such
to If;, .The two-thirds vote in each house which
is required in proposing an amondment is a voto
of two-thirds of tho members present assum
!!1S tno Prosenco of a quorum and not a voto
of two-thirds of the entire membership present
and absent. Missouri Paciflic Railway company
vs. Kansas, 248 U. S. 276.
"3. Tho referendum provisions state con
stitutions and statutes cannot bo applied, con
sistently with tho constitution of tho United
States, in the ratification or rejection of amend
ments to it. Hawke vs. Smith U. S. decided
June 1, 1920.
"4. The prohibition of manufacture, sale,
transportation, importation and exportation of
intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, as
embodied in tho eighteenth amendment, is with
in the power to amend reserved by article V
of the constitution.
"5. That amendment by lawful proposal and
ratification has become a part of tho constitu
tion, and must bo respected and given effect the
same as other provisions of that instrument.
"6. Tho first section of the amendment tho
one embodying tho prohibition is operative
thruout the entire territorial limits of tho
United States, binds all lociRlative borl'os, court,
public officers and individuals within those
limits, and of its own force invalidates any legis
lative act whether by congress, or by a afato
legislature or by a territorial assembly which
authorizes or sanctions what the section pro
hibits. "7. The second section of the amendment
tho one declarng 'the congYfcss and the several
states shall have concurrent power to enforce
this article by appropriate locrislation' does
not enable congress or tho several states to de
feat or thwart the prohibition, but only to en
force it by appropriate means.
"8. Tho. words 'concurrent power in that
section do not mean joint power or require that
legislation thereunder by congress, to be ef
fective, shall be approved or sanctioned by the
several states or any of them; nor do they mean
that tho power to enforce is divided between
congress and tho several states along tho linos
which separate or distinguish forolgn and Inter
state commerco from intrastate affairs.
"9. Tho power confided to congress by that
section, while not oxcluaivo, Is territorial co
extensive with tho prohibition of tho first sec
tion, embraces manufacture and othor Intra
state transaction as well as Importation, exporta
tion, and interstate traffic, and It In no wise
dopondod on or affected by action or Innction oa
tho part of tho sovcral states or any of them.
"10. That power may bo exerted against tho
disposal for bovorago purposes of liquor manu
factured before tho amondrnont became effective,
just as it may bo against subsequent manu
facture for thoso purposes. In olthor case It is
a constitutional mandate or prohibition that is
bolng enforced.
"11. Whllo-recognizing that there are HmiU
beyond which congress oannot go In treating
beverages as within its power of enforcement,
wo think thoso limits nro not transcended by the
provision of tho Velstoad act, whoroln liquors
containing as much ao one-half of ono per cent
of alcohol by volume and fit for uso for beverage
purposes are treated as within that powor, Jacob
Ruppcrt vs. Caffoy, 251 U. S. 2C4."
TAFT OPPOSED TO MANDATE
An Aberdeen, Wash., dfspatch, dated May 26,
follows: In a statement mado hero today W1I
lam II. Taft declared -tho United States can not
undertake a mandate for Armenia under the
league of nations, slnco this country is not a
member of tho league. Mr. Taft addod that ho
was not certain whether tho mandato should bo
undertaken under any circumstances, and onWl
that ho was Inclined to agroo with William 3
Bryan, who announced his opposition to t?3e
mandate. He asserted, however, Armenia should
be helped.
"Tho Armenian question," ho said, "Js too
complex to say off-hand whothcr wo should
accept tho mandato proposed by Mr. Wilson. I
notice that Mr. Bryan is opposed to It, and I am
inclined to think Mr. Bryan Is about right. If
President Wilson had Included Turkey In hfflM
proposal perhaps I should favor tho suggestion.
To undertake a mandate for Armenia would
mean the dispatch of a large part of our array to
that country, entail a heavy cost and involve us
in complications for a long tlmo to come,"
BRYAN, AT SAN FRANCISCO
Mr. William Jennings Bryan will
go to the Democratic convention from
Nebraska. He defeated the opposi
tion of Senator Hitchcock and now
Hitchcock retires from the contest
for Democratic leadership of the Sen
ate. Bryan is for the peace treaty
"with reservations.- Hitchcock was
Wilson's representative in the Sen
ate. Bryan's triumph is ahard blow
to the cause of the treaty as written.
It is a setback for President Wilson.
Bryan will be a big man in the con
vention, probably the big man. Wil
son will have more delegates with
him, I should say but in 1912 Bryan
took delegates in blocks and flocks
from their leaders at Baltimore. It
will be a thinly veiled fight between
Wilson and Bryan, with the latter in
rather a strong position, For Bry
an stands for listening to the people,
"while Wilson listens only to "voices
in the air" and the eloquence of his
own ego. Bryan w'ill be backed by
the country's prbliibitionlst senti
ment. Wilson vetoed the Volstead
act. Bryan will probably insist upon
a dry plank in the platform, but the
unterrified Democrats from the cities
will oppose it. A compromise will
hardly suit Mrt Bryan, whose special
ty is moral issues. He will not stand
"or beers and light wines. I doubt
Jt the party will have the courage
Jo voto him down. If it does it will
lose the rural vote. If it doesn't it
will lose the city voto. It may stand
for enforcement of prohibition and
lot trying it but, but that won't mean
anything. Bryan may split the party
even though he may not bolt. And
whom does ho want for the nominee?
No one knows. Some suspect him
self? Would he favor Wilson for a
third term? Hardly. Palmer is a
dry, but Palmer has put up only a
fake fight against the profiteers, and
he has been a rampant supporter of
espionage and.'of suppression of opin
ion and of war laws as a means of
breaking strikes. Bryan does not
like that. There's McAdoo? Ho is
the ablest of the aspirants, but is he
innocent of Wall street affiliations
and is he not too close to Wilson V
Bryan respects Wilson somewhat, but
he thinks there's too much Wilson in
Democracy now, and too little Democ
racy in Wilson. Therefore, Bryan
maynot like McAdoo. He may be
sizing them all up and waiting until
the convention gets into action before
Jl j..uno wimm to throw the
prize as he did at Baltimore. He will
not have anyone who is wet or even
mildly moist; that is tho one thing
certaip. So it would seem the one
test will be as to prohibition. Jt will
be more important than the League
of Nations issue, than even public
ownership of the trunk line railroads
S the whole, insofar as Bryan w
lmve nower in the convention, it win
be exePrc7sed in opposition to the .com
plete domination of the convention by
Wilson who put him on tho skids a&
Secretary of State. Will Wilson's ap
pSSeesyand delegates .they cent ol
lift able t3 overcome Bryan s lnuu
ence? It is doubtful. Bryan is closer
Creating an Estate
m
All arq striving to create an estate. When
feath comes, if there is no Insurance, a forced
sale of tho property often causes a largo loss,
whereas, tho proceeds from a life insurance
policy will furnish ready money for the Im
mediate needs and the executors of the estato
can have tlmo to dispose of tho property to the
best advantage.
"he cash value of a man's life to his family,
if ho earns but $1,000 a year, at age thlrty-fivo
is over ?14,000. No man would go without fire
insurance on that amount of property and yot
if he carries no life insurance, ho is forcing his
family to carry a risk for this amount unpro
tected. Why not transfer this risk from the
family to
. THE MIDWEST LIFE
of MNCOLN, NEBRASKA
N. Z. SNBLL, President.
i ' Guaranteed Cost Life Xnsuxaaco
. t
H
I
4 a
Ml
. v
- fcll
w
",VI
i ,!
J
,
?r
?
'!
ii
tj
tf.ii
V
"VM
--,
gO&LllkiM,'
'A.
J jVr 4 :
