7
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.