The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-11-24

and that hs had Tight to stors os keep t for his own use, at neat -beeI stands or Ike places. or elsewhere. II these speakers ana their argument dd not affirm the correctness of the de cision of the Supreme Court on the principle involved and defeat their owr purpose. then logic has lost its force and reason becomes Q joker.
 Their position and argument lead exactly to tho opposite. to that which they assert the amendment is Intended to accomplish. and the argument ''re- ductio ed absurdum" is complete.
 These gentlemen have job equally as dffncult, if not more so, than that of our friend who undertook to meet an emergency. by showing that the dwelling" mentioned in the Bill of Rights. and which Is synonymous or includes nome" was not place" The hook-worm. if there be such. is surely getting in his work upon tho vitals of their mental activities.
 l do not wish to be understood as endorsing the decision of the Supreme Court in the Bessemer case. The mer- It's of that decision are not involved fin this discussion. Neither must 1t be in- ferred that 1 agree with these as to the legal definition of the word man ufacture" as used in the proposed amendment. I feel confident 1t does in- clude alcoholic liquors." wines and "cther intoxicating heverages" for so- ciai use or otherwise. I merely meet them upon their chosen ground and demonstrate where 1t necessarily leads to. and the absurdity of their process of reasoning.
 Our own Supreme Court has settled the question as to the definition of manufacture and adversely to their contentious.
 As to Judge Thoripxton.
 Whom Judge ThorinEton wrote his last piece ho certainly did not have copy of his previous article nor my re- ply before him. wrote nothing to Justify his statement that I was op- posed to the prohibition statutes." What I wrote was. that I hoped that Alabama would never have constitu- ton in harmony with all tho provis- ions of the Fuller bill. z,
 ask Judge Thorington to say whether he approves of all of the pro visions of the Fuller bill. If he does 1t will surely bring on more talk"
 Judge Thorington also states that made him say that the constitution must conform" to the statutes-the Fuller bill and Carmichael bill. I said nothing of the kind; had his let tcT DeLUTe 1ub anu used HIS UWu ldu- guage which was that in construing the constitution 1t was right to keep in view the acts of the Legislature passed at the same session and mak e them all harmonize to promote one general 'scheme."
 let any one take his letter and my references and criticise and pass judg- ment. It Is often the case that the oxcrtions of horse in the mire to ex- trlcate himself causes him to sink there leave him. vainly calling upon 'predicates" and "colloca- tions' to come to his aid. which have no existence in the record, and are but creations of an anxious and perturbed 
 It. appears that Dr.. Cunningham is tc take the stump for the amendment. There Is not preacher or parson on the musings that can hold a candle light to pr. Cunningham in picturing the degradation of drunkenness or in appeals to the women and childron This is a great struggle for constit;l- tlonal protection. Men through blood secured It. and men are responsible for its preservation. and not women and children.
 The doctor Is reported as saying that