« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
terior, in the place of Franklin K. Lane, former PER CURIAM. Dismissed for the want of Secretary thereof, on motion of Mr. Solicitor jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) EquitaGeneral King for the appellee.
ble Life Assurance Society v. Brown, 187 U. S. 308, 314, 23 Sup. Ct. 123, 47 L. Ed. 190;
Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk, etc., Ry. (253 U. S. 473)
No. 231. Edward A. SHEDD et al., appel-Co., 228 U. S. 596, 600, 33 Sup. Ct. 605, 57 L. lants, v. GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY .et Hospital'v. City of Philadelphia, 245 U. S. 20,
Ed. 982; Contributors to the Pennsylvania al. May 17, 1920. Appeal from the District 24, 38 Sup. Ct. 35, 62 L. Ed. 124; (2) Southern Court of the United States for the Western Ry. Co. v. King, 217 U. S. 524, 534, 30 Sup. District of Missouri. Messrs. 0. H. Dean and Ct. 594, 54 L. Ed. 868; Gaar, Scott & Co. v. J. C. Rosenberger, both of Kansas City, Mo., Shannon, 223 U. S. 468, 473, 32 Sup. Ct. 236, for appellants. Messrs. Delbert J. Haff, 56 L. Ed. 510; Middleton v. Texas Power & Charles W. German, and Justin D. Bowersock, Light Co., 249 U. S. 152, 157, 39 Sup. Ct. all of Kansas City, Mo., for respondents.
227, 63 L. Ed. 527; (3) Shevlin-Carpenter Co. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of juris- v. State of Minnesota, 218 U. S. 57, 67, 30 Sup. diction upon the authority of Farrell v. O'Brien, Ct. 063, 54 L. Ed. 930. 199 U. S. 89, 100, 25 Sup. Ct. 727, 50 L. Ed. 101; Empire State-Idaho Mining Co. v. Han
(253 U. S. 474) ley, 205 U. S. 225, 232, 27 Sup. Ct. 476, 51 No. 324. Robert D. KINNEY, plaintiff in L. Ed. 779; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, error, v. PLYMOUTH ROCK SQUAB COM79, 29 Sup. Ct. 580, 53 L. Ed. 914; Brolan v. PANY. May 17, 1920. In error to the Dis. United States, 236 Ú. S. 216, 218, 35 Sup. Ct. trict Court of the United States for the Dis255, 59 L. Ed. 544; Sugarman v. United States, trict of Massachusetts. Mr. Robert D. Kinney, 249 U. S. 182, 184, 39 Sup. Ct. 191, 63 L. Ed. for plaintiff in error. 550.
PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of juris
diction upon the authority of (1) Farrell v. (253 U. S. 475)
No. 256. Samuel W. SCOTT et al., plaintiffs O'Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100, 25 Sup. Ct. 727, in error, v. Ida B. W. BOOTH. May 17, 1920. 50 L. Ed. 101; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of 71, 79, 29 Sup. Ct. 580, 53 L. Ed. 914; Brolan Missouri. For opinion below, see 276 Mo. 1, v. United States, 236 U. S. 216, 218, 35 Sup. 205 S. W. 633. Messrs. J. H. Ralston, of Ct. 285, 59 L. Ed. 544; Sugarman v. United Washington, D. C., and Robert 0. McLin, States, 249 U. S. 182, 184, 39 Sup. Ct. 191, 63 0. H. Dean, and H. M. Langworthy, all of Kan-L. Ed. 550; (2) Kinney v. Plymouth Rock sas City, Mo. (Messrs. James T. Montgomery, Squab Company, 236 U. S. 43, 49, 35 Sup. Ct of Sedalia, Mo., Bruce Barnett, R. B. Thomson, 236, 59 L. Ed. 457. and R. D. Williams, all of Kansas City, Mo., of counsel), for plaintiffs in error. Messrs. J.
(253 U. S. 499) W. Porter, of Tucumcari, N. M., and C. W.
No. 346. John S. RANDOLPH, plaintiff in Prince, E. A. Harris, James N. Beery, all of error, v. The UNITED STATES of America. Kansas City, Mo., and A. E. Crane, of Topeka, May 17, 1920. In error to the District Court Kan., for defendant in error.
of the United States for the Northern District
of New York. Mr. Frederick A. Mohr, of AuPER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of juris- burn, N. Y., for plaintiff in error. The Attorney diction upon the authority of Schlosser v. General for the United States. Dismissed, on Hemphill, 198 U. S. 173, 175, 25 Sup. Ct. 654, motion of counsel for the plaintiff in error. 49 L. Ed. 1000; Louisiana Navigation Co. v. Oyster Commission of Louisiana, 226 U. S. 99, 101, 33 Sup. Ct. 78, 57 L. Ed. 138; Gray's
No. 370. J. Hartley MANNERS, petitioner, Harbor Co. v. Coats-Fordney Co., 243 U. S.
v. Oliver MOROSCO. May 17, 1920. See, also, 251, 255, 37 Sup. Ct. 295, 61 L. Ed. 702; Bruce 252 U. S. 317, 40 Sup. Ct. 335, 64 L. Ed. 590. v. Torin, 245 U. S. 18, 19, 38 Sup. Ct. 7, 62 Messrs. Walter C. Noyes and David Gerber, L. Ed. 123.
both of New York City, and William J. Hughes,
of Washington, D. C., for petitioner. Mr. No. 268. Bartholomew SULLIVAN et al., Charles H. Tuttle, of New York City, for reappellants, V. Jane KIDD. May 17, 1920. spondent. Motion to modify decree denied. Mr. George F. Beatty, of Salina, Kan., for appellants. Messrs. 0. H. Dean, H. M. Langworthy, and Roy B. Thomson, all of Kansas Interior, et al., appellants, v. The STATE OF
No. 412. Franklin K. LANE, Secretary of the City, Mo., for respondent. Ordered that this case be restored to the docket for oral argument, 258 Fed. 980. The Attorney General, for plain
NEW MEXICO. May 17, 1920. See, also, and the clerk is directed to notify the Attorney
tiffs in error. Mr. Patrick H. Loughran, of General of the United States and the Attorney Washington, D. C., for the State of New Mex. General of the State of Kansas of the pendency
ico. Leave granted to substitute as one of of this cause.
the appellants John Barton Payne, present
Secretary of the Interior, in the place of Frank. (253 U. S. 474)
No. 310. James K. PERRINE, plaintiff in i lin K. Lane, former Secretary thereof, on moerror, v. The STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. tion of Mr. Solicitor General King for the apJohn EMBRY, County Attorney. May 17, 1920. pellants. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. For opinion below, see 178 Pac. 97. Ņo. 434. The UNITED STATES of America Mr. E. G. McAdams, of Oklahoma City, Okl., er rel. C. E. SYKES, plaintiff in error, v. for plaintiff in error.
Franklin K. LANE, Secretary of the Interior.
(40 Sup.Ct.) May 17, 1920. See, also, 258 Fed. 520. Mr.
(253 0. S. 488) Francis W. Clements, of Washington, D. C.,
No. 850. TEXAS & GULF STEAMSHIP for plaintiff in error. Leave granted to sub- CO., petitioner, v. Clarence PARKER et al. stitute as defendant in error John Barton May 17, 1920. For opinion below, see 263 Payne, present Secretary of the Interior, in Fed. 864. Petition for a writ of certiorari the place of Franklin K. Lane, former Secre- to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals tary thereof, on motion of Mr. Solicitor Gen- for the Fifth Circuit denied. eral King for the defendant in error.
(253 U. 8. 488) (253 U. S. 474)
No. 860. The BECKWITH COMPANY No. 437. The COUNTY OF DOUGLAS, in (formerly the estate of P. D. Beckwith, Inc.), the STATE OF NEBRASKA, plaintiff in error, petitioner, v. MINNESOTA STOVE COMPAv. George Warner SMITH. May 17, 1920. | NY.
May 17, 1920. For opinion below, see In error to the United States Circuit Court of 264 Fed. 337. Petition for a writ of cerAppeals for the Eighth Circuit. For opinion tiorari to the United States Circuit Court of below, see 254 Fed. 244, 165 C. C. A. 532. Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. William C. Lambert, of Omaha, Neb., for petitioner.
(253 U. S. 488) PER CURIAM. Dismissed for the want of
No. 861. Jeannette W. LEE, petitioner, v. jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) section Richard C. MINOR, as trustee, etc., et al. 128 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. $ 1120); May 17, 1920. For opinion below, see 263 Fed. Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 568, 32 507; 260 Fed. 700. Petition for a writ of cerSup. Ct. 704, 56 L Ed. 1205; Hull v. Burr, tiorari to the United States Circuit Court of 234 U. S. 712, 720, 34 Sup. Ct. 892, 58 L. Ed. Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. 1557; Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 237 . S. 300, 304, 35 Sup. Ct. 598, 59 L. Ed. 965; Delaware, Lackawanna
(253 U. S. 488) & Western R. R. Co. v. Yurkonis, 238 U. S. No. 865. COMMERCIAL CREDIT COM439, 444, 35 Sup. Ct. 902, 59 L. Ed. 1397; PANY et al., petitioners, v. CONTINENTAL (2) Brown y. Alton Water Co., 222 U. S. 325, | TRUST COMPANY. May 17, 1920. For 332, 333, 32 Sup. Ct. 156, 56 L. Ed. 221; Alas- opinion below, see 263 Fed. 873. Petition ka Pacific Fisheries v. Alaska, 249 U. S. 53, 61, for a writ of certiorari to the United States 39 Sup. Ct. 208, 63 L. Ed. 474.
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
(253 U. S. 475)
(253 U. S. 489) No. 633. Fred W. WEITZEL, plaintiff in er- No. 868. The CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & ror, v. The UNITED STATES. May 17, 1920. PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, petitioner, In error to the District Court of the United v. Mrs. Minnie OWENS, administratrix, etc. States for the Eastern District of Kentucky. May 17, 1920. For opinion below, see 186 Pac.
PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of ju- 1092. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the risdiction upon the authority of (1) Equitable Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma deLife Assurance Society v. Brown, 187 U. s. nied. 308, 314, 23 Sup. Ct. 123, 47 L. Ed. 190; Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk, etc., Ry.
(253 U. S. 489) Co., 228 U. S. 596, 600, 33 Sup. Ct. 605, 57 L. ROAD COMPANY, petitioner, v. The STATE
No. 869. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILEd. 982; Contributors to the Pennsylvania Hospital v. City of Philadelphia, 245 U. S. 20, OF ALABAMA. May 17, 1920. For opinion 24, 38 Sup. Ct. 35, 62 L. Ed. 124; (2) La below, see 81 South. 60. Mr. Richard V. Lindmar v. United States, 240 U. S. 60, 36 Sup. abury, of Newark, N. J., for petitioner. Mr. Ct. 255, 60 L. Ed. 526; Lamar v. United J. Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., and L. E. Brown, Sp. States, 241 U. S. 103, 36 Sup. Ct. 535, 60 L. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State of Alabama.
Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Ed. 912.
Court of the State of Alabama denied. (253 U. S. 487) No. 840. Emily DE FOUR, petitioner, v.
(253 U. S. 489) The UNITED STATES of America. May 17,
No. 873. Charles KOLLMAN, petitioner, v. 1920. For opinion below, see 260 Fed. 596. The UNITED STATES. May 17, 1920. PetiPetition for a writ of certiorari to the United tion for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Court of the Philippine Islands denied. Circuit denied.
(253 U, S. 488)
(253 U. S. 489) Nos. 848 and 849. The BACKSTAY MA- No. 888. The PENNSYLVANIA RAILCHINE & LEATHER CO., petitioner, v. Helen ROAD COMPANY, petitioner, V. Alfred Wade HAMILTON. May 17, 1920. For opin- STIEDLER. May 17, 1920. For opinion beion below, see 262 Fed. 411. Petition for low, see 109 Atl. 512. Petition for a writ of writs of certiorari to the United States Circuit certio to the Court of Errors and Appeals Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. of the State of New Jersey denied.
(253 U. S. 350)
erage purposes, is within the power to amend STATE OF RHODE ISLAND V. PALMER, reserved by article 5. Atty. Gen., et al.
5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Ow10_PROHIBITION No. 29, Original.
AMENDMENT HELD LAWFULLY PROPOSED AND
RATIFIED. STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. SAME.
Const. Amend. 18, prohibiting the manufacNo. 30, Original.
ture, sale, etc., of intoxicating liquors for bey.
erage purposes, has become, by lawful proposal DEMPSEY v. BOYNTON, U. S. Atty., et al. and ratification, a part of the Constitution.
6. INTOXICATING LIQUORS Om 13 — STATUTES No. 696.
AUTHORIZING WHAT PROHIBITION AMEND
MENT PROHIBITS ARE INVALIDATED.
Const. Amend. 18, § 1, prohibiting the man-
ufacture, sale, etc., of intoxicating liquors
for beverage purposes, is operative throughout No. 752.
the entire territorial limits of the United States CHRISTIAN FEIGENSPAN v. BODINE, U.
and of its own force invalidates every legisla.
tive act of Congress, state Legislatures, or ter. S. Atty., et al.
ritorial assemblies, authorizing or sanctioning No. 788.
what it prohibits. SAWYER, U. S. Atty., et al. v. MANITOWOO
7. INTOXICATING LIQUORS ww13 - PBOHIBIPRODUCTS CO.
TION AMENDMENT ONLY AUTHORIZES STAT
UTES ENFORCING ITS PROVISIONS.
Const. Amend. 18, § 2, giving Congress and ST. LOUIS BREWING ASS'N V. MOORE,
the states concurrent power to enforce such
amendment by appropriate legislation, does not Collector, et al.
authorize Congress or the states to defeat or No. 837.
thwart the prohibition contained in section 1,
but only to enforce it by appropriate means. (Decided June 7, 1920.)
8. INTOXICATING LIQUORS 13 – CONGRES1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Om 10-RESOLUTION SIONAL LEGISLATION UNDEB PBOHIBITION
PROPOSING AMENDMENT NEED NOT CONTAIN AMENDMENT NEED NOT BE JOINED IN DECLARATION THAT IT IS REGARDED AS ES- SANCTIONED BY STATES; "CONCURRENT SENTIAL.
POWER.” A joint resolution proposing an amendment The words "concurrent power," in Const. to the Constitution need not contain an express Amend. 18, § 2, giving concurrent power to declaration that those voting for it regard it as Congress and the states to enforce that amendessential; its adoption sufficiently showing that ment, do not mean a joint power or require that they deem it necessary.
legislation thereunder by Congress to be effec
tive, shall be approved or sanctioned by the ser2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Ow10_“TWO-THIRDS eral states, or any of them. VOTE" OF MEMBERS PRESENT CONSTITUTING
9. INTOXICATING LIQUORS Ow13–POWER OF QUORUM MAY ADOPT RESOLUTION PROPOSING
CONGRESS NOT LIMITED TO INTERSTATE AMENDMENT.
TRANSACTIONS. The "two-thirds vote" in each house, which
Const. Amend. 18, § 2, does not divide the is required in proposing an amendment to the Constitution, is a vote of two-thirds of the Congress and the states along lines which sep
power to enforce such amendment between members present, assuming the presence of a quorum, and not a vote of two-thirds of the arate or distinguish foreign and interstate com
merce from intrastate affairs, but confides to entire membership.
Congress power territorially coextensive with [Ed. Note. For other definitions, see Words the prohibition of the first section and embracand Phrases, First and Second Series, Two- ing manufacture and other intrastate transacThirds Vote.]
tions as well as importation, exportation, and
interstate traffic. 3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Ow10_REFERENDUM
10. INTOXICATING LIQUORS 13-POWER OF PROVISIONS CANNOT BE APPLIED TO ADOP
CONGRESS NOT DEPENDENT ON ACTION OF TION OF AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL CONSTI
THE STATES. TUTION, The referendum provisions of state Consti- Amend. 18, § 2, to enforce the prohibition con
The power conferred on Congress by Const. tutions and statutes cannot be applied, contained in section 1, is in no wise dependent on, sistently with the Constitution of the United
or affected by, action or inaction on the part of States, in the ratification or rejection of amend the states, or any of them. ments to that Constitution.
11. INTOXICATING LIQUOBS 13–CONGRESS 4. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 10—PROHIBITION MAY PROHIBIT DISPOSAL OF LIQUORS WANT
AMENDMEN WITHIN POWER TO AMEND CON- FACTURED PRIOR TO PROHIBITION AVENDFERRED BY CONSTITUTION.
MENT. Const. Amend. 18, prohibiting the manufac- Under Const. Amend. 18, Congress may ture, sale, etc., of intoxicating liquors for bev-] prohibit the disposal, for beverage purposes, of
am For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
(40 Sup.Ct.) liquors manufactured before such amendment, No. 30. Argued March 29, 1920: became effective.
Mr. Thomas F. McCran, of Paterson, N. J.,
for complainant. 12. INTOXICATING LIQUORS 13-NATIONAL PROHIBITION ACT IS
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frierson, CONGRESS.
for respondents. The National Prohibition Act, which treats No. 696. Argued March 9, 1920: liquors containing one-half of 1 per cent. of al- Mr. Patrick Henry Kelley, of Boston, cohol by volume and fit for use for beverage Mass., for appellant. purposes as within the powers of enforcement Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frierson, conferred on Congress by Const. Amend. 18, for appellees. does not transcend the powers so conferred.
No. 752. Argued March 9 and 10, 1920: Mr. Justice McKenna and Mr. Justice Clarke dissenting in part.
Messrs. Levy Mayer, of Chicago, Ill.,
and William Marshall Bullitt, of Louisville, No. 696: Appeal from the District Court
Ky., for appellant. of the United States for the District of
Mr. Solicitor General King and Mr. AsMassachusetts.
sistant Attorney General Frierson, for ap
pellees. No. 752: Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western Dis- No. 788. Argued March 29 and 30, 1920: trict of Kentucky.
Messrs. Elihu Root and William D. GuthNo. 788: Appeal from the District Court rie, both of New York City, for appellant. of the United States for the District of New Mr. Solicitor General King and Mr. AssistJersey.
ant Attorney General Frierson, for appellees. No. 794: Appeal from the District Court No. 794. Argued March 30, 1920: of the United States for the Eastern District
Mr. Solicitor General King and Mr. Assistof Wisconsin.
ant Attorney General Frierson, for appel. No. 837: Appeal from the District Court
lants. of the United States for the Eastern District
Mr. Ralph W. Jackman, of Madison, Wis., of Missouri,
for appellee. Original suits by the State of Rhode
No. 837. Submitted March 29, 1920: Island and by the State of New Jersey against A. Mitchell Palmer, Attorney Gen
Messrs. Charles A. Houts, John T. Fitzeral, and others. Suits dismissed.
simmons, and Edward C. Crow, all of St.
Louis, Mo., for appellant. Suits by George C. Dempsey against Thom
Mr. Solicitor General King and Mr. Assistas J. Boynton, as United States Attorney, ant Attorney General Frierson, for appeland others, by the Kentucky Distilleries & lees. Warehouse Company against W. V. Gregory, as United States Attorney, and others, by
*384 Christian Feigenspan, a corporation, against
*Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER announced Joseph L. Bodine, as United States attorney, the conclusions of the Court. and others, by the Manitowoc Products Com
Power to amend the Constitution was repany against Hiram A. Sawyer, as United served by article 5, which reads: States Attorney, and others, and by the St. “The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Louis Brewing Association against George Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose H. Moore, Collector, and others. From a Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the decree in favor of plaintiff in the suit by the Manitowoc Products Company, defend Application of the Legisla*tures of two-thirds
of the several States, shall call a Convention ants appeal, and from decrees for the defend for proposing Amendments, which, in either ants in the other suits, the plaintiffs appeal. case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, Decree in the suit by the Manitowoc Prodas part of this Constitution, when ratified by ucts Company reversed, and decrees in the the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several other suits affirmed.
States, or by Conventions in three-fourths For opinion below in Christian Feigenspan thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratifiv. Bodine, see 264 Fed. 186.
cation may be proposed by the Congress; ProSee, also, State of Rhode Island v. Palmer, vided that no Amendment which may be made 40 Sup. Ct. 179, 64 L. Ed. —; State of New prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred Jersey v. Palmer, 252 U. S. 570, 40 Sup. Ct. and eight shall in any Manner affect the first
and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the 345, 64 L, Ed.
first Article; and that no State, without its No. 29. Argued March 8 and 9, 1920:
Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage *353
in the Senate.” *Mr. Herbert A. Rice, of Providence, R. I., for complainant.
The text of the Eighteenth Amendment, Mr. Solicitor General King and Mr. Assist- proposed by Congress in 1917 and proclaimed art Attorney General Frierson, for respond as ratified in 1919 (40 Stat. 1050, 1941), is ents.
For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
“Section 1. After one year from the ratifica-serative throughout the entire territorial limtion of this article the manufacture, sale, or its of the United States, binds all legislative transportation of intoxicating liquors within, bodies, courts, public officers and individuals the importation thereof into, or the exporta- within those limits, and of its own force in. tion thereof from the United States and all ter
+387 ritory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for validates every *legislative act, whether by beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Congress, by a state Legislature, or by a "Sec. 2. The Congress and the several states territorial assembly, which authorizes or shall have concurrent power to enforce this ar- sanctions what the section prohibits. ticle by appropriate legislation."
 7. The second section of the amend.
ment—the one declaring “The Congress and We here are concerned with seven cases the several states shall have concurrent powinvolving the validity of that amendment
er to enforce this article by appropriate legand of certain general features of the Na-islation"-does not enable Congress or the tional Prohibition Law, known as the Vol- several states to defeat or thwart the prostead Act, c. 85, Acts 66th Cong., 1st Sess. hibition, but only to enforce it by appro(41 Stat. 305), which was adopted to enforce
priate means. the amendment. The relief sought in each case is an injunction against the execution in that section, do not mean joint power, or
[8-10] 3. The words "concurrent power," of that act. Two of the cases—Nos. 29 and require that legislation thereunder by Con30, original,—were brought in this court, and
gress, to be effective, shall be approved or the others in District Courts. Nos. 696,
sanctioned by the several states or any of 752, 788, and 837 are here on appeals from them; nor do they mean that the power to decrees refusing injunctions, and No. 794 enforce is divided between Congress and the from a decree granting an injunction. The several states along the lines which separate cases have been elaborately argued at the
or distinguish foreign and interstate combar and in *printed briefs; and the arguments merce from intrastate affairs. have been attentively considered, with the
9. The power confided to Congress by that result that we reach and announce the fol- section, while not exclusive, is territorially lowing conclusions on the questions involved: coextensive with the prohibition of the first
 1. The adoption by both houses of section, embraces manufacture and other inCongress, each by a two-thirds vote, of a trastate transactions as well as importation, joint resolution proposing an amendment to exportation and interstate traffic, and is in the Constitution sufficiently shows that the no wise dependent on or affected by action proposal was deemed necessary by all who or inaction on the part of the several states voted for it. An express declaration that or any of them, they regarded it as necessary is not essential.
 10. That power may be exerted None of the resolutions whereby prior against the disposal for beverage purposes amendments were proposed contained such of liquors manufactured before the amenda declaration.
ment became effective just as it may be  2. The two-thirds vote in each house against subsequent manufacture for those which is required in proposing an amend purposes. In either case it is a constitutionment is a vote of two-thirds of the members al mandate or prohibition that is being en.
forced. present-assuming the presence of a quorum -and not a vote of two-thirds of the entire
 11. While recognizing that there are membership, present and absent. Missouri limits beyond wḥich Congress cannot go in Pacific Ry. Co. v. Kansas, 248 U. S. 276, 39 treating beverages as within its power of enSup. Ct. 93, 63 L. Ed. 239, 2 A, L. R. 1589. forcement, we think those limits are not
 3. The referendum provisions of state transcended by the provision of the Volstead Constitutions and statutes cannot be ap- Act (title 2, § 1), wherein liquors containing plied, consistently with the Constitution of as much as one-half of 1 per cent. of alcohol the United States, in the ratification or re- by volume and fit for use for beverage *purjection of amendments to it. Hawke v.
poses are treated as within that power. Smith, 253 U. S. 221, 40 Sup. Ct. 495, 64 L. Jacob Ruppert v. Caffey, 251 U. S. 264, 40 Ed. —, decided June 1, 1920.
Sup. Ct. 141, 64 L. Ed.  4. The prohibition of the manufacture,
Giving effect to these conclusions, we dissale, transportation, iniportation and expor-pose of the cases as follows: tation of intoxicating liquors for beverage
In Nos. 29 and 30, original, the bills are purposes, as embodied in the Eighteenth
dismissed. Amendnient, is within the power to amend
In No. 794, the decree is reversed. reserved by article 5 of the Constitution.
In Nos. 696, 752, 788 and 837, the decrees  5. That amendment, by lawful proposal
are affirmed. and ratification, has become a part of the Constitution, and must be respected and Mr. Chief Justice WHITE concurring. given effect the same as other provisions of I profoundly regret that in a case of this that instrument.
magnitude, affecting as it does an amend 6. The first section of the amendment ment to the Constitution dealing with the -the one embodying the prohibition-is op- powers and duties of the national and state