Morning Oregonian. (Portland, Or.) 1861-1937, May 13, 1918, Image 7

Historic Oregon Newspapers

Morning Oregonian., May 13, 1918, Page 7, Image 7

Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR

About Morning Oregonian. (Portland, Or.) 1861-1937 | View Entire Issue (May 13, 1918)

Prev Page of 16 Next Prev Issue Next Text PDF JP2 (4.4 MB) Clip/Print Image

Return to Top

Prev Page of 16 Next Prev Issue Next

Newspaper Page Text7 PATRIOTIC WOIfJ TIIE MOItXIXG OREGOXIAN. MONDAY, MAY 13. 1918. Wlhy lam- A SERVE THE NATION Valiant Recruits From Homes and Firesides Are Enlisted in Army of Democracy. 95 PER CENT VOLUNTEERS! Great Be4 Croat Organisation Now Occupying Liberty Temple- Effi cient Tbrongb Effort of Tboaa Who Work for Flag. They are not general, eoloaela, ma jor, la fact. they evr carry asr tit! at alL . Thay ara almplr private In . th Treat National army of patriotism. Thay do th work. Many of them bare home and able, bat Just the una they wlU b found Indispensably linke4 wttk each great patrlotte campaign, no matter whether It" be liberty loan. T. W. O A. or Red Cross. Sometime they Jaat work mornlnr: aomattmea Just even ings; aometlraea only a few hours now and again, bat most of them work mornlnr. noon and night. "They" ara the valient army of I women who a newer to th call fori volunteer. as fee Ceaf Ara Telaateera. Stat Chairman Thla and 8lat Chalr . man That; Manager Blank and Co lo rds John Pe and Richard Do are mentioned dally la the nubile print, bat bark of them are the tenogra phera. th office force, the telephone operators. i per cent of whom are volunteer. bom of these volunteer come from homes, and ther dh away just In tlma to et hubby'a dinner, or dash away from horn Juat after dinner. Some com from offices, making arrant-amenta with thetr fellow em ploy .a to work overtime, so that their work shall not fall behind. But were It not for them, no mat ter what th campaign, tha great heart and pocket of tha public would not be touched, for It could not be reached. In tha great Red Croaa organisation, for example, there are to be found In Liberty Temple all day Mlsa Oetta Wasserman. Mrs. EL C Glltner. Mrs. R. W. Child. Mrs. Julius Loirisson. Mrs. A- L. Fish and many others, and through these women, their friends, their business affiliations, their hus bands and their friends, a great work ing organization la created. Ora-aalaatlea la Complete. There ara eight typewriters la Lib erty Tempi. Evry typewriter oper- atea continuously, even though some- I , 4. j ft times three or four volunteer operators mjn JlUt it IUU11UC1. may be required. Come a sudden call for one or more stenographers at night. Tha call Is in 7 The Man Who Fights for Ore gon'a Development. National F "PASSING THE BUCK" TO THE STATES THIS IS WHAT CONGRESS DID WITH PROHIBITION- MEMBERS WERE UNWILLING TO TRUST WILSON roMbation Ready to Jeopardize the Structure of American Political Liberty, but Lacking Backbone to Defy the Prohibition , . v . Iconoclast and Fanatics. . - V NATION NOW TO BE TORN BY BITTER AND EXPENSIVE DISCUSSION THOMAS JEFFERSON AND WOODROW WILSON IN FULL .ACCORD. (With acknowledgment to Washington Times. Thomas Jefferson, author ef the Deelaratloa ef Independence, saldi "Whisky kills one-third of onr cttlsene and ruins oar families." - - Hcdrflw Wilson saldt "No more whisky ahall be manufactured when the present supply is exhausted." Thomas Jefferson demanded and enconraged the making of light wine and beer. He saidi "I wish to see this beverage (beer) become common, instead of whisky, which killa one-third of our cltlaens and rulna their families.' Wood row Wilson, ander the power granted him by Congress, stopped the manufacture of whisky, but allowed workmen beer, 9 per cent water, a ad light wines. THIS DID NOT SATISFY PROHIBITION FANATICS. NOTE: I am liberal, but I am not a gambler. I am sociable, but I I respect women and fllled- Nona knowa Just how or why ViO70 VlOOTl TY1 n rriPfl t" appears. It I part of that wonderful I Vi p COTTIP Wlfft for 22 organUIng faculty a woman has. It may chance that a man may be yearSI DUt 1 am nOt 3. dictating to tha wife of hi business . partnar. or an employ to tha slater of "CfllCKen dlESei HOT his employer. . , . Take tha telephone switchboards. for Wife Stealer. example. It la aam tner is no more - , parfsct sarvlc In th city of Portland. I T rinllflP hilt T Ux women, relieving each other, have A 1" pOlIUCS, UUL A made that service perfection. Even th noon hour Is taken car of. when Ua Florence Galea relieve th other workers to th minute. Th telephone operators are Mr Guy Reynolds. Mrs. Chaster Martin. Miss Mildred Joy. Mis Cat. Mis lry. Mrs. C A. Olason, Mrs. Griffith. have no ring and stand strictly on my own convictions. Above all, I am strictly in favor of re ligious liberty and un alterably . opposed to mixing religious con victions with political issues. "Wise political birds" are 'saying: has no chance. yno are these prophets? Ask them what can- w.hr mi., didate they are sup- Toung. Miss I . , ... porting ana asK mem why? See if you will not find that their Candi da tp hns pit.Vipr n. JAIL FOR EPOLICE CHIEF sack which these Prominent Cle-Elont Cltlsea Con- petty, politicians are depending on for meal tickets, or if they are not influenced by glit tering promises of jobs. Ask some of them Vaeaaetea Call for Experts. Now among tha stenographic and clerical force a veritable -who's who" might be compiled. Soma are business w.men. some society women who have taken np stenography, but It la the concensus of opinion they ara all won derfully efficient. In fact. In th lib - erty loan campaign virtually every vol unteer had a highly paid position ten dered to her and many accepted. Ther are atlll vacancies. Miss Gett Wasserman. office manager points out. but only for expert in any especial line. Among th volunteer clerical work- iTTl, ra will be found Mr. Ralph Tom-1 liar ley llnson. Mr. H- J. cnipman. stisa urey. Miss Msegly. Mr. K. W. Went. Mr W. F. Cieblsr. Mrs. Frank Cani. Mrs. C C. Colt. Mrs. Frank McCrlllls. Mrs. William See. Mrs. F. B. Mathews. Mr. A. R. Inn.. Mi Rosemary Baldwin. Mr. WeatfaJL Misa Marlon. Citron. Mra. IX C. Freeman. Mr. F. W. Ruth Plummer. Mra. R. C ll.nrk.tta Lauer. Mlsa Shepherd. Miss Annie Shaylor. Mr. H. C Danford. Mra. K. O. Ueckes. Mrs. F. Balden. Mrs. Clifford Irwin. Mra. J. A. Dowllng. Mrs. Burnett. Mrs. Philip Dater. Mra M. J. Clohessy. Mlsa Ina Arbuckle, Mis Utrsbrgr and Mr. Brewster. victed of Moonahlntng. TAKTV A. Wash.. Mar Matt Kauaianch, City Councilman, former chief of police and Influential ctttsen of CI Elura. was sentenced today by Judge F. H. r.udkla la Federal Court to six months- imprisonment In the Ysklma County Jail and to pay a fin of ltf. Kaustarlrh waa convicted of being th leader of a gang of moon shiners who operated a still In the tvi 11 Vi cunrwwv- mountalna near Cle Elum. He denied HOW mUCn SUPpOri his guilt, sven after convicted. No- il rrivin rr iVta tire was given of sppeaU and Kaus- inCy are giving ine larlch I Pctd to ecur hi tr- Unnflp rrrror dora on bond pending final action of UUUllCggClS. la pronouncing sentence Judge Rud- Dont let these hypo- kin rsbuked Kaualartch In scathing t 1 tsrms. not only for hi own pantlcl- CHICS 1001 0U. pation In th moonshining operations. t - , . but for using his influence to get oth- JJOn t let tfiem PCr- sra Into the same offense. Kaus- , j. j l larlch took hi sentence with a amll. SUaCie yOU tO trade n ennr ornno for o MYRTLE MASMIS HON'ORED h7pUr: WllUoiette Freshman Awarded Al- self at the WTOng end of the bargain. Vote according to the dictates of your i1l conscience, and we'll a state. (Pal Adverttsesseat Rarley fee Ceverser Lfa) bert FTlse at Salem. W1LI-AMETTE fNIVERPITT, Salem. Or, May 11. (Special.) The Albert prise he been awarded to Mlaa Myrtle Mason, of Boise. Idaho. The prli I and la given by Mrs. Joseph Albert, of Salem, to tha atudent In the L . . A .-v university who. In th last year, ha I II dV 6 XI U 1 , (J 11 I V mad tha gr.atst Improvement lni;v Vmf nrnrrrocciuo character. scholaaUe standing and 1 11 VC UUL Si prOgTeSSlVe leadership. Tha faculty nominates three students I whom they deem eligible and submit th nam to tha student body. A popu- I lar vots is then taken. The three I aomlnaled were Mis Mabel Garret. I senior, of Salem: Mlsa Roe Martin, eophomor. of Myrtl Creek, and Alias I In voting to submit to the states for ratification the proposed Constitutional amendment providing- for Na tional "prohibition Congress simply "PASSED THE BUCK to th states. It was clearly within the power of Congress to clothe the Chief Executive with authority to declare Nation-wide prohibition for the period of the war; but this programme was not agreeable to the personal liberty iconoclasts who propose to dictate to everybody the scope and character of their individual initiative. They insisted on Introducing an element of discord in our country when all its energies should be directed towards the one object of "WINNING THE WAR." They were determined to exploit what J. Y. Brattan, correspondent of the Baltimore American, calls "one of the fads that are sapping the Nation's strength." In my judgment their action is not only distinctly unwise, but, in a sense, unpatriotic and unfair. National prohibition BY EXECUTIVE ORDER for the period of the war would have met every argument of the "DRYS" in their philippics against booze as a hindering factor in war. Their insistence on the Con stitutional settlement of the question at this time PROVES THAT THEY WERE ACTUATED MORE BY FANATICISM than by PATRIOTISM. The ratification of this proposed amendment MAY CHANGE THE WHOLE CHARACTER OF OUR NATIONAL LIFE AND ACTIVITY. In this state ment, I include both our political and our commercial character. I will first speak of the political character of thiar proposed change. The provision of Article X of Amendments to the Consti tution is well known, and has hitherto been accepted as the basis of state action, namely: "THE POWERS NOT- DELE GATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITU TION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE." This provision forms one of the principal foundation stones of the doctrine .of political states' rights." "THE UNITED STATES SHALL GUARANTEE TO EVERY STATE IN THIS UNION A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOV ERNMENT, AND SHALL PROTECT EACH OF THEM AGAINST INVASION." This clearly gives to each state the power, through its Legislature o? other factors of political . .. .... . . 1 : 1 1 , : :t "the infmediate gratification of their fanatical whims respect ing the "moral aspects." if there .are any, of their view 'of the liquor question. And they seem willing to JEOPARDIZE THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE OF AMERICAN POPULAR LIBERTY IN THEIR MADNESS. A leading apostle of this pernicious doctrine was told plainly in Canada recently by British "Tommies" in language not the choicest, but cer tainly forceful, .where "he got off," and the apostle "got." I think it is time to use. some of the "Tommy" language and style of argument in America. ; : There are members of Congress "and State 'Legislatures who seem to be "scared" of the advocates of constitutional tinkeriifg. It is time for them to come out of their trance, for ' there is more, much more, involved in this National prohibi tion amendment than the abolition of booze. - v .The debates and votes in Congress on this proposed amend ment revealed some anomalous features. I have only space in this article to analyze the proceedings in the House. Fifty-three Representatives took part in the closing debate December 17. Of these 26 spoke for .and 27 against the reso lution. Of the 26 speaking for 14 were from "wet" or par tially "wet" states; 12 were from "bone-dry" states. Twenty states were represented in the affirmative, five of which were Southern and 15 Eastern and Western. Of the 27 Congress men speaking AGAINST the resolution 23 were from "wet" or partially "wet" states; four were from "bone-dry" states. Fifteen states were represented, 11 "wet" or partially "wet"; four "bone-dry." There were six Southern states and nine Eastern and Western states. Under the debate agreement, Webb, Democrat, of South Carolina, and Volstead, Republican, of Minnesota, controlled the time for the prohibition side; Gard, Democrat, of Ohio, and Graham, Republican, of Pennsylvania, controlled the time for the opposition. Mr. Webb occupied 15 minutes in preliminary remarks, mostly relating to the proposed amendments to the resolution. The main portion of his speech dwelt upon the right to submit the proposed amendment to the states for ratification, the threadbare iteration of the "terrible evils" of . drink, the growth of prohibition sentiment in the various states, the "iniquity" of Government partnership, etc., closing with a letter from Anna A. Gordon, President National W. C. T. U., presenting a petition of 500,000 members of that organization. Mr. Gard opened for the opposition in a ten-minute speech, procedure the right to determine the individual privileges of ' striking at once at the heart of the matter by saying: "I am its citizens, INCLUDING TUB fKlViiE-UB ur vx-u-i j STIMULANTS. This is further emphasized by Article IX of Amendments to the Constitution, which says - "THE ENUMERATION IN THE CONSTITUTION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DIS PARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE." But for these clear thoroughfares of political action prohibitionists would never have been able to secure prohibitory enactments in any of the states. Yet they propose now, by one incisive stroke, to absolutely nullify the right of any state to determine for itself its local political economy. Trys is clear as daylight, for in the event of three-fourths of the states of the Union ratifying the pending prohibition amendment, the remaining one-fourth (in all, twelve great states) would be forever dis barred so far as this question is concerned, from exercising the plain rights guaranteed them under the Constitution. Moreover, such action on the part of the three-fourths would, in my judgment, constitute "INVASION," for, while this term in Section 4, Article IV, may primarily refer to MILITARY invasion, there is nothing in the phraseology of the article to indicate that it did not also include political in vasion. Surely, a force measure adopted by three-fourths of the states which should nullify the Constitutional rights of one-fourth of the states to "EXERCISE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES," including the power of local self-government, would in effect be political invasion. And POLITICAL INVASION, in its far-reaching effects, though peaceful in appearance, might prove as dis astrous as MILITARY INVASION. I contend that such a radical departure from the plain letter and spirit of the Constitution would INVITE POLITICAL ANARCHY IN THE UNITED STATES; for, if three-fourths of the states decide to use this method to settle the prohibition question, what is to hinder an equal number of states, at some future time, applying the SAME METHOD IN FORCING OTHER OBJECTIONABLE LEGISLATION? I will make this point clearer as I proceed. 1 have said that "EVERY STATE MAY WELL PAUSE AND REFLECT DEEPLY BE FORE GIVING THEIR SANCTION TO THIS AMEND MENT." I AM DEEPLY IN EARNEST IN UTTERING THIS WARNING, and wish I could give it greater emphasis. I will now refer to the commercial aspect of the proposed amendment. In dealing with the commercial factor I am not thinking of the mere matter of dollars and cents (made, saved or spent) by reason of the alcoholic industry or any other industry or occupation, though that feature has importance; but I am thinking of the fetters that may possibly be placed upon the industries and the agriculture of this country (yea, upon great bodies of individual citizens themselves) should this latest prohibition method of procedure by constitutional tinkering ' become the fashion. Let us predicate a case. Suppose, in the course of our participation in the present world war, it should be concluded that it is necessary, as a war measure, for the Government to take over all the industries and farms of the United States and establish prices (wage and selling) in connection therewith. This has already been done to some extent. At any time this power may include all industries, manufacturing and agri cultural The people, being loyal, would probably acquiesce and consent to the arrangement FOR THE PERIOD OF THE WAR. They might even comply uncomplainingly to a universal conscription of labor, as well as commodities, PROVIDING THE COMPENSATION AND PRICES WERE FAIR, and the conditions were lifted at the close of the war. (Congress has just gone through a discussion involving sim ilar elements in the case of the conscripted railways.) But suppose, in the interest of the general welfare, A CONSTI TUTIONAL AMENDMENT WAS PROPOSED TO MAKE THE CONSCRIPTION OF INDUSTRIES, MANUFAC TORIES, AGRICULTURE AND LABOR PERMANENT WHAT THEN? "Oh," our prohibition orators would say, "it is unthink able that three-fourths of the states would ratify a destructive measure like that." Yet these very unctuous and zealous prohibitionists are themselves arguing and working tooth and toenail for the success of the very principle, which, if successful, will make this predicated action possible. They are paving the way, so far as they are able, FOR THE AUTOCRACY OF CONSTITUTIONAL TINKERING, AND THE DESTRUCTION OF STATE AUTONOMY, AND, THEREFORE, OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY IN AMERICA. The prohibitionists and the spineless members of Congress who came under their domination will not "think so." There's the trouble. People of that bent of mind DO NOT THINK of the ultimate consequences of their act, but are bent on opposed to the passage of this article of amendment because I think it removes from the states the police power given - to the states by the Constitution of the United States of America and never before sought to be taken from them. I believe that this question is a non-political, a non-partisan question, that it is essentially a social and moral question, and, therefore, that it is properly for the control of the several states and not at all to be engrafted on the Federal Consti tution; it is not and never has been the policy of the law to engraft upon the Federal Constitution any policies of Gov ernment. These are left in two ways the National provisions are for action of Congress; provisions applying to the states are left to the wisdom of the State Legislatures. That has always been recognized and should be recognized today." Mr. Gard recalled that the acts of the states, under this arrangement, in enacting prohibition legislation, had been ratified by acts of Congress and sustained by decisions of the United States Supreme Court. He said further: "We contend that the states should have the right to deter mine whether the states and the people of the states are best served by prohibition or by regulation. It is a constitutional right, and we ask that it be maintained." Mr. Gard also referred to the necessity of concentration of every ounce of the National power toward the great task of winning the war. Cooper, of Ohio, followed for prohibition. He recited the time-worn arguments of the "ill effects" of alcohol beverages on workmen and soldiers, and told about the victories' (or near-victories) for prohibition in the recent election in Ohio. He admitted, however, that the state had gone "wet." He said not one word about the momentous political danger in volved in the proposed amendment. Dyer, of Missouri, scored some strong points for the oppo sition.' He quoted from the late Senator Hustings, of Wiscon sin, whom he characterized as "a great Democrat, one who tried in every way to uphold Oie lianas of the President in this great war." This is the quotation from Senator Husting: "We are engaged In a war that requires a strong feeling of unity throughout on the part of all. Vexatious domestic questions ought to be relegated to the rear and only legislation calculated to promote our success In arms should be passed now. None else should be considered even. We want to draw together our people, not drive them apart, and every Senator here knows that there Is scarcely anything that has so aroused bitterness and dlssentlon among our people as th prohibition question." "Gentlemen." said Mr. Dyer, "this Is nothing more nor less than a question whether or not we shall stand by the President of the United States in this hour when all good citizens ought, or whether we shall stand by Dinwiddle and the Anti-Saloon League, who think more, in my Judgment, of this issue of "wet . ' and dry than they think of the issue of whether America or Germany shall win In thla great war." . . . "We have seen It In the papers that the Anti-Saloon League has stated that they are raising a great amount of money for the purpose of going out into the states, if this amendment carries. In order to campaign for the adoption of the amendment.- Could not th Anti-Saloon League do better with this money by putting It to the us of the war?" Cantrill, of Kentucky, speaking against the resolution, referred to the power already placed in the hands of the Presi ident. 'He said: , "Under the Federal law today, the manufacture of spirituous liquors Is absolutely prohibited. Only very light wines and beers can now be legally made in this country, and the President of the United States can now by the stroke of the pen prohibit the manufacture of wines and beers and place the Nation strictly on a prohibition basis. . . . I am willing to trust this entire question to his wisdom and Judgment. ... I will show my confidence in him by voting to defeat the pending amendment- . . . The President, from his exalted position, knows better than any man, or any set of men, what is best for the welfare of the -Nation. . . . Full power is now in his hands, and the lawmakers of the land will make no mistake when they permit him to handle the liquor question along with a multitude of other questions of equal or greater Importance. This la ao time for members ef this house to consider their Indi vidual political fortunes In making; np their minds how they will vote oa the ejoeetloas which come before them." Walsh, of Massachusetts, made an effective argument in opposition to the amendment. He said: "It is said that democracy Is precious, and that we are en gaged In a struggle for democracy, but to say that the states In one section of this country shall dictate to the states In another section of the country upon matters which heretofore have been within the sole control of the people of the several states, upon matters which by the plainest interpretation of the Constitution are reserved to the states. Is not in the Interest of democracy. So, for the reason that I am opposed to including in the funda mental law propositions of this sort, I am opposed to ,thls resolution." ' ... Mr. Walsh also referred to the necessity of concentration of efforts to win the war, and said: "I submit that we ought not at this time by our action here transfer to the states a contest which will result In discussion and occupation of time, the expenditure of effort and money In each of the 48 states of the Union, which same time, effort and money might well be used toward the winning of this war." Small, of North Carolina, a "bone-dry" state, made the following telling points, among many others: - "If the time ever comes when the states are shorn of the right to govern themselves in all local matters and are deprivad of the right to exercise their untrammeled police powers in the enforce ment of the same, we will see the beginning of the end of this re public When all government is centralized at Washington there will come local and state disaffection, loyalty to th central- Government will be Impaired and ultimately revolution . will stalk abroad throughout the land. It may be said that this Invasion of the right of the states constitutes only one instance, and that other Invasions will not necessarily follow. In a matter of such supreme import even one invasion of local self-government may not.be justified, but, unfortunately, this Is only one of a number which are now being pressed by sealous reformers. The first error will make easier subsequent efforts. When we have once weakened the fine balance of powers between the states and the Federal Government we will nave endangered the stability of the entire structure." Again, "This amendment is not necessary to enable any state . to control or prohibit the manufacture, sale, consumption or Importation into such state of intoxicating liquors. Each etate lvas the power, to use a familiar expression, to make Itself 'bone dry.' Not only may each state pass laws prohibiting within Its borders the manufacture, sale or consumption of intoxicating liquors in any form, but, under the Webb law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States, it may prevent the Importation of any Intoxicating liquors into such state. Through its administrative officers and by its own courts each state may literally enforce such laws. The statement may be empha sized that each state now has the exclusive power over intoxi cating liquors." Again, "It may be asked, then, what is the necessity of this amendment to the Constitution? Is it to enable one state. In combination with others, to exercise power over another state? To express It badly, the purpose of this amendment Is to enable the Legislature of one state to join with the Legislatures of 39 other state end Impose absolute prohibition over the remaining 12 unwilling atatrw." , . Mr. Small's speech was one of the most powerful made in opposition. Every American citizen should get a copy and read it. ' McArthur, of Oregon, a "bone-dry" state, injected a new note. He said: "To those that contend that this Is a war measure let me say that it will be at least two years before the requisite three fourths of tha states will hold sessions of their Legislatures; and, granting, for the sake of argument, that the amendment will be adopted as soon as the Legislatures have an opportunity to vote on it which is extremely doubtful there is a proviso that it shall not become operative until one year after Its final adoption by the last of the necessary 36 states. This means it will be at least three years before National prohibition can be come a reality. Let us fervently hope that the war will be over before three years have elapsed. ... I cannot agree that a vote in Congress for National prohibition is merely a 'refer endum,' and that the responsibility in the matter rests with the states. . . . There is no such thing as a referendum, for this implies a popular vote rather than a vote by the Legislature. . . . The function of Congress In this matter Is not purely ministerial, but is an essential element in the process of amend ment." I hardly think it would be profitable in this article to extend this digest of the speeches of 'Congressmen, especially since the essential lines of the debate have been indicated in the quotations already given. Perhaps, however, I should not close without citing the strong point made by Mr. Gordon, of Ohio. Mr. Gordon said: "This proposed Jpint resolution Is a bald, naked and palpable repudiation of the letter and spirit of the tenth amendment to the Federal Constitution, the adoption of which was necessary to insure its ratification by the requisite number of states." (I have already quoted this amendment in the first part of this article.) . . . "This Joint resolution proposed to outlaw bv prohibition the use of many hundreds of millions In value of property now utilized in the production, manufacture and sale of vinous, spirituous and malt liquors, and to clothe the Federal Government with the police power necessary to enforce this destructive and confiscatory enactment. It is proposed to do this by a majority vote of the Legislatures of three-fourths in number of the states of this Union. Eleven of these states Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Ver mont, Rhode Island Utah and Wyoming, represented on the floor of this House by 16 members and in the Senate of the United States by 22 Senators had, by the census of 1910, an aggregate population of 3,336,313, while the same census of the state of New York had a population of 9,113,614. Neither of these 11 states had as many people as the city of Cleveland, Ohio, at that time, and all of them combined had 1.400.000 less oeonle than th city of New York. Here we have the Impelling force behind this proposition, because the people of states like New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois , Ohio , Texas, Missouri, Massachusetts, Indiana, Wisconsin and New Jersey refuse to conform to the ideas of rural and sparsely aettled states like the 11 I have named, the latter propose to Join with the other' email and sparsely settled states of the Union and by their preponderating power in numbers, each state having one vote on amending the Constitution, to force this amendment on the ten states last mentioned, whose combined population, by the census of 1910. was in excess of one-half the total population of all the states in the Union." The revolutionary character of the proposed amendment in its assault upon the reserved rights of the states are lightly passed up, or slurred, by the prohibition debaters. It seemed to matter little to them what seeds of future discontent and possible revolution were sown, so long as they could secure victory for their own view or the supposed opinions of their constituents on the "sacred" fetich of prohibition. In contrast to this, the arguments of the opposition were largely based upon the principles of government involved. Two conspicuous examples of men. who "looked ahead" and who recognized the principle of fair play were Small, of North Carolina, and Huddleston, of Alabama, both representing "dry" states. The former said: "If the people of North Carolina would have resented In 1882 the action of 36 other states in imposing upon them prohibition against their will, are the people of that state Justified in 1917 in trying to impose prohibition upon the people of an unwilling state simply because the people of North Carolina have reversed themselves upon this question? The query answers itself." Mr. Huddleston, of Alabama, said: "I am a prohibitionist, but I am also a Democrat. I hold that the right of self-government is'more Important than prohibition more Important than anything else in the world. . . . Democracy has its application to individuals as well as to com munities and states and nations. The Individual has a natural right to order in his own life. It is an unalienable right, coequal with the right to breathe the air, to live. It is recog nized by the Declaration of Independence as among the rights of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' Anyone who presumes to interfere with tht right commits a moral wrong greater than if he had Interfered with the right of property. Vhoso steals a man's liberty Is more a thief than he who steals his property.' . . . For one state to dictate to another how It shall exercise the police powers reserved to itself Is a gross usurpation yea, more, it is a denial of democracy and a moral wrong more serious in Its nature than the taking of property without the consent of the owner. Dictation by a number of states to a sister state is not different in its moral aspect from dictation by a single state. The compelling force is greater, that is all. By the union of states there is a pledge of faith that each state may continue to exercise powers not granted to the Federal Government. A change in this principle constitutes a breach of faith, even though such change be wrought under forms of legality." I think the arguments presented by these two representatives of "dry" states contain the strongest reasons for the defeat of the proposed amendment by the state legislatures. I have said previously that "I am not thinking of the mere matter of dollars and cents (made, saved or spent) by reason of the alcoholic industry; but I cannot help thinking of the hun dreds of thousands of dollars that will be spent in this unneces sary campaign forced upon the American people at this vital moment when every energy and every dollar should be devoted to winning the war. This money would far better be expended for the purchase of liberty bonds, war savings stamps, smlleage books or the work of the Red Cross, Y. M. C. A. and Knights of Columbus. In these channels It would have gone directly for the benefit of our boys at the front, whereas, if the expenditure of it shall by chance win Nation-wide prohibition, it will be impossi ble to give our Army any protection, under it in less than three years., By that time probably the war will have been either won .or lost." - The wisdom of permitting soldiers to have mild wines and malt liquors is an open question anyhow. All our military allies permit their use. France gives her soldiers wine by the railroad tank-carload. Germany permits the use of stimulants. All these nations have been doing some fighting, it will be admitted. An example of time and energy taken away from direct war-winning work to be expended in opposition to an ill-timed prohibition campaign is shown by my own case. I am not and never was in the liquor business, but I believe In personal liberty and in the constitutional rights of the states to Bettle their own political problems; and. believing that this proposed amendment is an attack upon those rights. I am devoting a part of my energies toward defeating the adoption of the prohibition amendment. If this question had not been injected, all of my time could be devoted to the one vital thing, winning the war. What Is true of myself Is true of many thousands more who will line up on one side or the other of this question. t "This fanatical campaign may prove to be a debacle of the war-winning spirit of America." . Yours for a Live State, HARLEY FOR GOVERNOR.