Amend. 18.-Prohibition. tions and statutes can not be applied consistently with the Constitution of the United States in the ratification or rejection of amendments to that constitution, and that the eighteenth amendment, prohibiting the manufacture, etc., of intoxicating liquors for beverages, is within the power to amend reserved by article 5 of the United States Constitution; in other words, that the "legislatures of three-fourths of the .. States," as the words are employed in that article (5), has reference to legislative bodies as they were known at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and not by any other body or the people generally. The action of the respondents, therefore, in attempting to refer the legislative ratification of the eighteenth amendment to the people, was wihout authority, and the trial court was in error in so ruling. Due process of law is not abrogated by the eighteenth amendment. U. S. v. Crossen, 264 Fed. 459. Power of Congress to fix reasonable time for ratification; seven years held reasonable. Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U. S. 368, in which it was also held that the amendment became part of the Constitution on January 16, 1919, when ratification by the States was consummated, and not on date when ratification was proclaimed by the Secretary of State. The action of the General Assembly of Ohio ratifying this amendment can not be referred to the electors of the State, the provisions of the State constitution requiring such a referendum being inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States. Hawke v. Smith, 253 U. S. 221. Abatement and Injunction Temporary injunction abating nuisance may issue without notice. McFarland v. U. S., 295 Fed. 648. See also U. S. v. Zukauckas, 293 Fed. 756. Capawana v. U. S., 294 Fed. 153. Westmoreland Brewing Co. v. U. S., 294 Fed. 740. U. S. v. Margolis, 289 Fed. 161. U. S. v. Reisenweber, 288 Fed. 520. Criminal Prosecutions Imprisonment not authorized for first offense of possessing liquors or stills. Troy v. U. S., 288 Fed. 851. Nosowitz v. U. S., 282 Fed. 575. Presumption from possession held sufficient to establish nuisance. Barker v. U. S., 289 Fed. 249. Evidence of single sale of liquor held not to sustain conviction for maintaining nuisance. Muncy v. U. S., 289 Fed. 780. On charge of maintaining common nuisance, evidence of bad reputation of place is admissible. Ryan v. U. S., 285 Fed. 734. Amend. 18.-Prohibition. National prohibition act forbids possession of property for manufacture of liquor. U. S. v. Horton, 282 Fed. 731. See also Anderson v. U. S., 294 Fed. 593. Goodfriend v. U. S., 294 Fed. 148. Morgan v. U. S., 294 Fed. 82. Remus v. U. S., 291 Fed. 513. Huth v. U. S., 295 Fed. 35. Hohenadel Brew. Co. v. U. S., 295 Fed. 489. Kane v. U. S., 295 Fed. 674. Ferry v. U. S., 292 Fed. 583. Guilt of unlawful possession may be inferred from its concealment on defendant's premises. Parks v. U. S., 297 Fed. 834. Licenses and Taxes Tax assessed by collector for violation of prohibition act can not be enforced by distraint and sale of property. U. S. v. Zerbey, 282 Fed. 332. Commissioner of Internal Revenue authorized to determine obligations and conditions of bond given for permit to purchase liquor. Offenses U. S. v. Wandmaker, 292 Fed. 24. See also Ginsberg v. Yellowley, 290 Fed. 262. O'Sullivan v. Potter, 290 Fed. 844. New Jersey Drug Co. v. Brown, 289 Fed. 108. Landlord, aiding and abetting tenant in manufacture of liquor on premises, may be prosecuted as principal, or for maintaining nuisance. Reynolds v. U. S., 282 Fed. 256. Same acts may constitute separate offenses of unlawful possession of liquor and maintaining nuisance. Singer v. U. S., 288 Fed. 695. See also Huth v. U. S., 295 Fed. 35. Massei v. U. S., 295 Fed. 683. Hattner v. U. S., 293 Fed. 381. Remus v. U. S., 291 Fed. 513. International Mercantile Marine v. Stuart, 285 Fed. 79. Single sale for nonbeverage purposes, without seller's permit, to buyer, having buyer's permit, held not illegal. Smulyan v. U. S., 293 Fed. 283. See also U. S. v. Skilken, 293 Fed. 916. Duffy-Mott Co. v. Blair, 292 Fed. 986. Keefe v. Clark, 287 Fed. 372. U. S. v. Illig, 288 Fed. 939. Amend. 18.-Prohibition. Searches, Seizures, and Forfeitures United States vessel, controlled by Shipping Board, not subject to forfeiture under national prohibition act. The Coldwater, 283 Fed. 146. Foreign vessel, brought into American waters by pirates, held not subject to penalties or forfeiture. The Louise F., 293 Fed. 933. Liquor in plain sight may be seized without search warrant. Where officers smelled fumes of a still, search without warrant held justified. Vachina v. U. S., 283 Fed. 35. Holding seized liquor, without forfeiture, held trespass ab initio. Godat v. McCarthy, 283 Fed. 689. U. S. v. Mattingly, 285 Fed. 922. Giles v. U. S., 284 Fed. 208. U. S. v. Liquors, 289 Fed. 278. In re Intoxicating Liquors, 291 Fed. 918. U. S. v. Cooper, 295 Fed. 709. Jackson v. U. S., 295 Fed. 620. Arrest of defendant while unlawfully transporting liquor authorizes seizure of liquor. Bell v. U. S., 285 Fed. 145. Search of person without warrant held unlawful, except with owner's consent. Snyder v. U. S., 285 Fed. 1. Maldonado v. U. S., 284 Fed. 853. But it was held in Cabitt v. Potter, 293 Fed. 54, that search of premises without warrant was lawful. Search warrant is exclusive remedy to secure possession of property used in violation of prohibition act. U. S. v. Franzione, 286 Fed. 769. Federal officer can not be aided by State search warrant not in accordance with the Federal law. Singleton v. U. S., 290 Fed. 130. Prohibition agent not "civil officer " to whom search warrant may be issued. U. S. v. Musgrave, 293 Fed. 203. Amend. 18.-Prohibition. Federal prohibition agent can not obtain search warrant on information and belief, as authorized by internal revenue law. U. S. v. Spencer, 292 Fed. 871. Owner of automobile used for transportation can not avoid forfeiture on mere claim of want of knowledge of illegal use. U. S. v. Montgomery, 289 Fed. 125. U. S. v. Kaplan, 286 Fed. 963. U. S. v. Torres, 291 Fed. 138. Petitioner for return of liquor unlawfully seized not required to prove his lawful possession. U. S. v. Descy, 284 Fed. 724. U. S. v. Dziadus, 289 Fed. 837. U. S. v. Westmoreland Brew. Co., 294 Fed. 735. Friedman v. Yellowley, 290 Fed. 248. Margie v. Potter, 291 Fed. 285. U. S. v. Jensen, 291 Fed. 668. U. S. v. Vatune, 292 Fed. 497. Chicco v. U. S., 284 Fed. 434. Amendment 19.-RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO VOTE.' The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Validity of adoption. Leser v. Garnett (258 U. S. 130) was a suit by qualified voters of Maryland to require the Maryland Board of Registry to strike the names of women from the register of voters upon the grounds that the State constitution limits the suffrage to men and that this amendment to the Federal Constitution was not validly adopted. In this case the court said: The first contention is that the power of amendment conferred by the Federal Constitution, and sought to be exercised, does not extend to this amendment because of its character. The argument is that so great an addition to the electorate, if made without the State's consent, destroys its autonomy as a political body. This amendment is in character and phrase ology precisely similar to the fifteenth. For each the same method of adoption was pursued. One can not be valid and the other invalid. That the fifteenth is valid, although rejected by six States, including Maryland, has been recognized and acted on for half a century. See United v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214; Neale v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370; Guinn v. United States, 238 U. S. 347; Myers v. Anderson, 238 U. S. 368. The suggestion that the fifteenth was incorporated in the Constitution, not in accordance with law, but practically as a war measure, which has been validated by acquiescence, can not be entertained. 66 The nineteenth amendment is in the precise terms of the fifteenth, with the substitution of the word "sex" for the words race, color, or previous condition of servitude." It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme 1 See p. 33 for ratification. Amend. 19.-Right of citizens to vote. Court of the United States that the fifteenth amendment does not confer upon colored men the right of suffrage; it only forbids discrimination. U. S. v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214. Fairchild v. Hughes (258 U. S. 126) was a proceeding to have the amendment declared void, but the court held that a private citizen is not entitled "to institute in the Federal courts a suit to secure by indirection a determination whether a statute if passed, or a constitutional amendment about to be adopted, will be valid." The ratification of this amendment by the legislature of Ohio can not be referred to the electors of the State; the Ohio constitution in requiring such a referendum is inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States. Hawke v. Smith, 253 U. S. 231. Effect of amendment of State constitution.-In Opinion of Justices (113 Atl., 614) it was held that, in view of the enactment of this amendment, which in affect amended article 2, section 1, of the Maine constitution regarding the qualifications of voters, the governor of that State could appoint women as justices of the peace. Amendment as qualifying women for jury service. This amendment does not operate in terms or by implication to qualify women as jurors. It requires legislation to do that. State v. James, 114 Atl., 553, wherein it was held that a male defendant could not raise the objection that women were not drawn for jury service. This amendment does not ipso facto render women eligible to serve as jurors. State v. Walker, 185 N.W. 619. State v. Mittle, 113 S.E. 335. This amendment, in terms, refers only to the right of women to vote. Accordingly, a State statute providing that " No woman shall be drawn for jury service unless she shall have previously filed with the clerk of the district court a written declaration of her desire to be subject to such service " is not invalid as being in violation of this amendment. State v. Bray, 95 So. 417. But where under the statutes of a State qualified electors of the State, possessing other specified requisite qualifications, are competent jurors, women of the State are eligible for jury service, since this amendment makes them qualified electors. State v. Hickman, 193 N.W. 21. Liberty of Contract In Adkins v. Children's Hospital (261 U. S. 525) the court said that restrictions on the liberty of contract can not be legally imposed on women in view of their present equal status before the law. |