Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (June 1, 1920)
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 :