Every plan of control must start from the fundamental fact that the business of producing and distributing alcohol transcends state lines. Under any regime there will always be a need of federal action to protect the systems of the several states, whether the state systems are prohibition or state conduct of the business or state control or state regulation. Moreover, in order to make that protection effective, there will probably always be need of a strong federal enforcin organization. To some extent the needed national action O'


could le brought in backhandedly by exercise of the power over commerce and the taxina power. But to set up a unified enforcing anization, required fiYrlhe conditions of manufacture and distriorg


bution today, demands a broader basis than was afforded by the powers of tlie'federal government before the Eighteenth Amendment.

Since at least a potential national check would be needed even if the subject or some part of it were remitted to state initiative, a constitutional provision is indispensable. In our judgment it is impossible to recede wholly from the Eighteenth Amendment in view of the economic unification of the country, the development of transportation, the industrial conditions of the time, and the general use of machinery in every line of activity. A complete remitting of liquor control to the states would be likely to result in the present situation in some states, with open saloons in others, with attempts at state control of manufacture and distribution in many others; but with no guarantee that any may be held to the minimum standards which national considerations demand. In the industrial and mechanical order of today liquor control is more imperative than ever. If it is to be effective, the federal government must be authorized to


do a larze T)art in the ro ram and to do it efficiently. Of course,


p g

it is recognized that active cooperation by the state governments


always Will be required for effective control.



r co


to c