The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-09-12
IoUie and Campbell
 Oppose The Amendment

stantial unanimity of opinion. But prohibition is not so. as yet, and there is not only large element of our peo- pie who oppose 1t entirely, but there is perhaps, larger element who question the wisdom of putting 1t into the or ganfc law. These latter prefer to leave it, where 1t properly belongs. in the hands of the Legislature. AL ready some very stringent laws have been placed on the statute books, rela- tive to this question, and, whilst some parts of these laws indicate quite as much enthusiasm as wisdom. they are as tight as such laws can well be made. and. if enforced, will ensure pro-
 ''The amendment is not necessary to the enforcement of these laws, and it adds nothing whatever to any of them. Without the statutes, the amendment would be dead letter; and, with the amendment, the statutes are not whit stronger than prohibt- tion statutes are, or can be. enforced. it Is not necessary to adopt the amend ment. or to put prohibition in the con- not, or cannot be enforced. then prohi- bition ought not to be in the constitu- ton. The fact Is that the enforcibil- ity of prohibition laws depends on the sentiment towards them of the people in the locality concerned. If the peo- pie in a given county oppose prohibi- ton, the juries are likely to reflect that sentiment and will not convict. It is. therefore, of much greater im- portance to cultivate sentiment fa- vorable to prohibition than 1t is to put 1t in the constitution.
 Changes are Dangerous
 fc.A l lr, xha 1rfn vo oxxy by amendment are not desirable, except in urgent cases. There have been, ii seems to us, too many amendments to our constitution already proposed. In the late call for an extraordinary ses- sion of the Legislature, several amend ments were suggested. Cur constitu- ton was framed by delegates sent by the people and selected by the people for that special purpose. and the work of the Constitutional Convention was ratified by the people. 1t is not an instrument to be tempered with. And it is not desirable that legislators. sent to legislate under the Consultation. should be continually submitting amendments to the constitution itself Though the present constitution was only adopted after many years of urg- ent effort to get a new constitution. and after much discussion of constitu- tional questions. it did not occur to the framers of that instrument that prohi- bition was one of the essential things. Nor were they unmindful of the im- portance of legislating on that ques- tion, for, while they threw around the Legislature many restraints against To- cal legislation. the framers of that in- strument, mindful of the importance of regulating or prohibiting intoxi- cants, provided, in Section 1o4, as 1ol- lows:
 Provided, that nothing in this sec ton or article shall affect the right of the Legislature to enact local laws regulating or prohibiting the liquor traffic.
 "Under this provision, a local law can be passed to regulate the whiskey question, as by a dispensary, for in- stance; or the sale can be prohibited by local laws. applicable to any one or more counties or localities.
 "If Statewide prohibition succeeds, all well and good; but. if 1t fails, the new amendment will defeat any effort to do what can now be done under the constitution. namely. relief by local legislation. We are in favor of full and fair trial of, and an honest effort to enforce, the prohibition laYAvAR for canpetrf session of fhe Legislature was to pass laws to enforce statewide pro- and 1t seems to be somewhat for "a Legislature to ad- init, in one breath. that its former laws could not be enforced. and, in the next breath, to assert that this