Washington, D. C., June 10, 1919.

Mr. Bartow A. Ulrich,

Press Club of Chicago,

Ashland Block,

155 North Clark Street,

Chicago, Illinois.

Sir: In reply to your letter of June 6th, I am directed by the Secretary of State to send you herewith copies of the documents you desire relating to the prohibition amendment to the Constitution.

I am, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

J. A. TORRER,

Chief of Bureau.

Enclosures: Documents as above.

S. J. Res. 17.

SIXTY-FIFTH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the third day of December, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen.

JOINT RESOLUTION.

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following amendment to the Constitution be, and hereby is, proposed to the States, to become valid as a part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of the several States as provided by the Constitution:

"SECTION 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

"SEC. 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

"SEC. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have

been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress."

CHAMP CLARK,

Speaker of the House of Representatives.
THOS. R. MARSHALL,

Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.

I certify that this Joint Resolution originated in the Senate.

JAMES M. BAKER,

Secretary.

FRANK L. POLK,

Acting Secretary of State of the United States of America To all to Whom these Presents shall come, Greeting:

KNOW YE, That the Congress of the United States at the second session, sixty-fifth Congress begun at Washington on the third day of December in the year one thousand nine hundred and seventeen, passed a Resolution in the words and figures following: to wit

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following amendment to the Constitution be, and hereby is, proposed to the States, to become valid as a part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of the several States as provided by the Constitution:

"SECTION 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

"SEC. 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

"SEC. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress."

And, further, that it appears from official documents on file in this Department that the Amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed as aforesaid has been ratified by the Legislatures of the States of Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

And, further, that the States whose Legislatures have so ratified the said proposed Amendment, constitute three-fourths of the whole number of States in the United States.

Now therefore, be is known that I, Frank L. Polk, Acting Secretary of State of the United States, by virtue and in pursuance of Section 205 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, do hereby certify that the Amendment aforesaid has become valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution of the United States.

In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the Department of State to be affixed.

DONE at the City of Washington this 29th day of January in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and nineteen.

FRANK L. POLK, Acting Secretary of State.

New H'm'shire...January 15, 1919 Pennsylvania...February 26, 1919
Nebraska
January 16, 1919

SUPREME COURT HOLDS SUBMISSION TO VOTERS OF STATE INVALID AS IT IS CONTRARY TO PRESCRIBED PLAN.

Washington, June 1.-The Supreme Court held today that federal constitutional amendments cannot be submitted for ratification to a referendum vote in the states having referendum provisions in their constitutions. The court declared inoperative the Ohio state constitutional referendum amendment insofar as it affects ratification of federal amendments.

Ohio Supreme Court decrees dismissing injunction proceedings brought by George S. Hawk of Cincinnati to prevent submission of the prohibition amendment and women's suffrage amendment to the voters were set aside by the court.

Justice Day, in rendering the court's opinion, which was unanimous, said in part:

"The constitution of the United States was ordained by the people and when duly ratified, it became the constitution of the people of the United States. The states surrendered to the federal government the power specifically conferred upon the nation and the constitution and the laws of the United States are the supreme law of the land.

The framers of the constitution realized that it might in the progress of time and the development of the new conditions require changes and they intended to provide an orderly manner in which these could be accomplished; to that end they adopted the fifth article. This article makes provision for the proposal of amendments either by two-thirds of both houses of congress or on application of legislatures of two-thirds of the states.

"The proposed change can only become effective by the ratification of the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or by conventions in a like number of states. The method of ratification is left

to the choice by congress. Both methods of ratification, by legislatures or conventions, call for action by deliberate assemblages,

representatives of the people, which it was assumed would voice the will of the people. * * Ratification might have been left to a vote of the people, or to some authority of government other than that selected. The language of the article is plain and admits of no doubt in its interpretation.

*

"The only question for determination is: What did the framers of the constitution mean in requiring ratification by 'legislatures'? That was not a term of uncertain meaning when incorporated into the constitution. What is meant when adopted it still means for the purpose of interpretation. A legislature was then the representative body which made the laws for the people. The term is often used in the constitution of which this is the evident meaning.

"There can be no question that the framers of the constitution clearly understood and carefully used the terms in which that instrument referred to the action of the legislatures of the states. When they intended that direct action by the people should be had they were no less accurate in the use of apt phraseology to carry out such purpose.

"It is true that the power to legislate in the enactment of the laws of a state is derived from the people of the state. But the power to ratify a proposed amendment to the federal constitution has its source in the federal constitution. The act of ratification by the state derives its authority from the federal constitution to which the states and people have alike assented."

In attacking the referendum amendment, Mr. Hawk alleged it was the intent of the framers of the federal constitution in prescribing ratification to the "legislatures" to mean the general assemblies of the states and not directly by the voters. He also contended that the power of ratification was derived from federal and not state authority.

The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the contention.

The Washington Supreme Court took virtually the same view of the question as did the Ohio court while the courts of Oregon, Maine, Colorado, Arkansas, California and Michigan held that federal constitutional amendments were not subject to referendum.

Columbus, O., June 1.-Action of the Supreme Court at Washington today is holding that federal constitutional amendments cannot be submitted for ratification to a referendum in states having referendum provisions in their constitutions, means that the vote of the Ohio legislature in ratifying federal prohibition and the federal woman suffrage amendment will stand.