• View enhanced case on Westlaw
  • KeyCite this case on Westlaw
  • http://laws.findlaw.com/us/253/231.html
    Cases citing this case: Supreme Court
    Cases citing this case: Circuit Courts
    HAWKE v. SMITH , 253 U.S. 231 (1920)

    U.S. Supreme Court

    HAWKE v. SMITH , 253 U.S. 231 (1920)

    253 U.S. 231

    SMITH, Secretary of Stae of Ohio.
    No. 601.

    Supreme Court of the United States
    Argued April 23, 1920

    June 1, 1920

    Messrs. J. Frank Hanly, of Indianapolis, Ind., George S. Hawke, of Cincinnati, Ohio, and Arthur Hellen, of Washington, D. C. (Messrs. Charles B. Smith, of Cincinnati, Ohio, and James Bingham and Reinster A. Bingham, both of Indianapolis, Ind., of counsel), for plaintiff in error. [253 U.S. 231, 232]   Messrs. John G. Price, Atty. Gen., and B. W. Gearheart, of Columbus, Ohio (Judson Harmon and Lawrence Maxwell, both of Cincinnati, Ohio, of counsel), for defendant in error.

    Messrs. Shippen Lewis, William Draper Lewis, and George Wharton Pepper, all of Philadelphia, Pa., amici curiae.

    Mr. Justice DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.

    This case presents the same question as that already decided in No. 582, 253 U.S. 221 , 40 Sup. Ct. 495, 64 L. Ed.-; the only difference being that the amendment involved is the proposed Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution extending the right of suffrage to women. The Supreme Court of Ohio, upon the authority of its decision in Hawke v. Smith, 126 N. E. 500, held that the Constitution of the state requiring such submission by a referendum to the people, did not violate article 5 of the federal Constitution, and for that reason rendered a like judgment as in No. 582.

    For the reasons stated in our opinion in No. 582, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio must be


    FindLaw Career Center

      Search for Law Jobs:

        Post a Job  |  View More Jobs
    Ads by FindLaw