Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

U.S. LIQUOR LAWS.

EIGHTEENTH AMENDMENT, VALIDITY tlfttELD BY SUPREME COURT. (uxrian AssdcUTiotf—it' tatctbio TSLXOBACP—COFVBIOaX.) (Received February 25th, 7.5 p.m.)' WASHINGTON, February 24. The Supreme Court, with the exception of the Chief justice, Mr C. E. Hughes, Who took ito part in the case, duo to his association with a similar case while practising as an attorney, unanimously upheld the ity of the Eighteenth Amendment, reversing the Clark ruling. The Supreme Court decision was not unexpected, but great interest was centred in it especially since the Gov? renment had asked the Court to decide quickly, due to so much questioning in the public mindi The Court offered a simple decision asserting that Congress has - entire power to prescribe the ratification either by Legislatures or by popular conventions. "Thin Court haa repeatedly and constantly declared that the choice of mode rents solely in tho dls» cretion of Congress," it declared. : The decision has transferred * the battle over tho liquor laws to tho Held 6t revision or repeal, Ms placed the entire question upon the shoulders of Congress, and lent added significdned to the recent Wickersham Report, Which is still widely disputed, and is the subject of Senatorial investigations. [On December lGth last year Federal Judge Williaili Clark i'iiled that the adaption of tlie Eighteen Ith Amendment , was invalid. Soma apprehension wus expressed by high Washington officials over the, effect of Judge Clat-k's decision uttoh Prohibition prosecutionst Judge Clark ? who is tm eminent scholar of the Constitution, though the youngest member of the Federal Judlciafy, devoted 15,000 Words to his decision, and called upon 100 authorities, basing it on the broad principle that such ail amendment could be ratified only by constitutional conventions, not by the State Legislatures. The Amendment Was attacked after study for two yearfe by a group of the New York County Lawyers' Association, who represented William Sprague, an obscure New Jersey township official indicted for trans* porting beer. Theiminediate effect of the decision, Judge Clark explained* Would be in New Jersey, where any arrests for the retail of intoxicants h&ve to be made under the State'. Enforcement Act. The appeal from t his decision was taken direct to, the United States Supreme Court.")

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19310226.2.95

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20172, 26 February 1931, Page 11

Word count
Tapeke kupu
364

U.S. LIQUOR LAWS. Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20172, 26 February 1931, Page 11

U.S. LIQUOR LAWS. Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20172, 26 February 1931, Page 11

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert