The Washington herald., 1907-12-01

bama. South Carolina. Florida. and Geor-
gia are also represented in the prohibi-
ton column
Two exceptions to the general rule in
the South are Repr sentative Lamb. OF
Virginia. and Representative Slayden. Of
Texas. The former represents "a city dis
trict. Richmond. ana il should DE added
that the prohibition movement has not
as yet made much headway IN the cities,
while Mr.. Slaydcn argues that there ara
many representatives Of foreign coun-
tries who are neither drunkards nor total
abstainers residing in Washington and
we have no right. in my opinion. 20 invite
them TO a residence at our capital and
then Inconvenience them BY such legisla-
ton" Among all the replies received
these were the only dissenting votes from
the South. although Mr.. Craig, OF Ala
bama. was noncommittaL
Why Prohibition Is Asked.
The reasons given FOR enacting pro-
hibition law for the District of Columbia
are many and various. Representative
Hinshaw. OF Nebraska. for instance in
declaring that he will vote for prohibition
here. says that he believes washington
is the only place where he has seen
women drunk
Representative Spight, OF Mississippi.
will vote for it because he believes that
'to prohibit the sale Of liquor in the city
Of Washington would not only result in
great good locally. but that Il would be
in accord with the moral sentiment OF
the country"
On the whole. the most convincing rea-
son, apparently, for voting for prohibi-
ton here is that many counties in the
Representatives. district are dry" and
that the results of restricting the sale OF
liquor have been good. In some States.
as in Illinois. where the new local option
law does not go into effect until next
spring. the outcome is awaited with con-
siderable interest and Representatives
from that State frankly admit that they
Will be guided largely Hy their home con-
dluons In determining how 20 vote on
the prohibition question here Ii is sur
prlslng to find how many Representatives
report dry counties in their districts
The "dryness'' does not seem TO be con-
lined 10 any one section Of the country.
but there are many dry counties in
States which have no restrictive liquor
laws.
Sentiment for High License.
There is considerable sentiment among
members Of Congress who do not believe
in prohibition in favor of high license.
Representative Haskins. Of Vermont. for
instance, cites the former situation in his
State when a prohibitory law was upon
the statute books. 1t did not. however.
prohibit. but now each town votes license
or no license, and the system is working
admirably. Representative Lenahan, of
Pennsylvania, also favors a high license
here and Senator Bulkeley. Of Connect
cut, takes the same stand. Representa-
tive CLANCY. of Indiana. who believes
that Washington ought 10 take an ad-
vanced position on the liquor question. is
inclined 20 believe that high license would
accomplish the best results. while Rep
resentative Lamb, Of Virginia. believes
that If high license obtained the quality
OF the liquor sold would be improved
Representative Stevens. OF Minnesota
says that high license would be better for
Washington than prohibition. which he
does not favor. while Representative
Weeks. of Massachusetts. writes that
in his opinion, high license is the practical
method Of handling the liquor question
here. r. preventative Roberts, Of the
same State favors high license and wants
the number Of licenses limited. Reure-
sentative John J. Esch. Of Wisconsin.
would like 10 see the high license policy
adopted i'm Washington. but adds that
lquor laws cannot be enforced If they
are in advance of public sentiment. In
the Senate Mr.. Perkins. of California.
believes in high license.
Believe People should Decide.
Quite a number of legislators. including
Foster. Of Vermont
Bede, OF Minnesota, and Wanger. OF
Pennsylvania, would like to see the ques-
tion of prohibition decided by the peoDle
OF the District
1T IS quite evident from the number of
Senator's and Representatives who did not
respond, that the question is considered
embarrassing. Indeed. Representative
Myer, Of Minnesota. frankly wrote that
ne did not think it was proper to ask
him such a question, and Representative
Greene. Of Massachusetts. avoided an
sWering by saying that he did not con-
slider It a part OF his duty to RESPOND to
the inquiry. Others who declined To
commit themselves are Representatives
Smith. Of New Jersey; Ames. OF Nassa-
Smith, of Michigan: Cook. OF
Colorado. Nichols. Of Pennsylvania: Sto-
venson. Of Minnesota: Craig. Of Alabama.
and Sperry. Of Connecticut. while Sena-
tors Bacon, OF Georgia, and Rayner. Of
maryland, wrote that they had not con
sluered the question 10 the extent which
would warrant a final judgment II is
also interesting 10 note that several Rep
reSentatives were, by a singular coinci-
dence, away from home when the inquiry
reached their Offices. so that the dutv of
evasively replying devolved upon their