The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-08-12


absolute teetotallers by statute. The
only difference between the original
and the substitute Is that the substi-
tute seekss to encompass the purpose
by direct methods, and 10 straight and
honest: while the original seeks by
indirect methods and is crooked and
hypocrftical.
"The substitute prohibits all men
from taking q drink, II does II openly,
the original does 1t covertly, secretly.
1t is the further declared purpose of
the prohibitionist to prohibit the ship
ment of liquor in the State by an act Of
Congress.
Then by indirect methods you have
accomplished the same thing as the
substitute seeks to do by open. direct
methods. It's ridiculous to say in the
original that a man has a right to
drink, and then close every avenue by
| which he can get IT, It's like putting
q man In a great desert. telling him,
Here's all the right in the world for
you to drink. now go ahead
why give the man the right to buy
and at the same time deny q man a
right to sellf Why not be honest and
come out and stand for the real thing?
You're hiding. It's q sham, o delu-
sion and snare. Why don't. you pass
the substitute then7 You can't say
that 1t Is wrong. or that II Is an In
fringement Of the liberties of any cit-
lien for 1 have shown you that the
original Is Just so much so. You can
neither say that 1t Is unconstitutional.
for IL you pass 1t, and submit 1t to
the people they'll make 1t part Of
the Constitution.
You can't say won't vote for It
because you can't enforce It. The
amendment itself enforces the sheriff
and the police officers to. be diligent
In their efforts to enorce the law. They
must be on their Jobs. You may i'm
peach those officers without Establish
ing proof Of blind tiger. But not
only this. the substitute provides that
a private citizen may take out a war
rant and arrest the offending person.
Now instead OF mixing law and
order leagues. each citizen may con-
stitute himself committee of one to
60 out into the streets and arrest
violators. The country cousins can
come to town and make their city
friends be good I say that this sub
stitute Is more in keeping with the
spirit of the law than the original
bill.
Il hold in my hand q pamphlet en-
titled THE Bible teaches Prohibition"
1t says that prohibition was originated
in the heart OF God, for when He put
Adam and Eve in the Garden. he pro-
hibited them from touching the fruit
VI tHo tres OF knowledge.
This substitute which offer pre-
vents the drinking of whiskey. The
original puts 1t out of mans reach
God did not destroy that tree Of
knowledge in the Garden. He left 1t
there. This substitute leaves liquor
in the land. It says. there 1t Is, but
don't touch IT.
why then don't you adopt this sub
stitute: it's superior in every point to
your measure? I'll tell you why you
won't do II. It's because 1t would put
most of you prohibitionists in Jail be-
fore tomorrow night: and I might add
some Of you anti-prohibitionists too
But seriously, why won't the
Senate adopt this substitute instead of
the original? For the reason that the
substitute without frills or trimmings
provides for the very things in an
OPEN honest way, the very things
which the original seeks to cover by
frills and trimmings
Not I'm Favor OF Either.
Should anyone ask me If I am in
favor of the substitute, should
answer. no. For the original? No.
am not in favor of either for the
reason that the ultimate aim Is the
same. ! do not believe that we SHOULD
put in the constitution of Alabama
any sumptuary law. Rome in her
glory. France during the reign of ter
late the habit, the tastes, the dress Of
her subjects. All of these prohibition
| laws have come to naught.
You may be willing to tear the old
ship of state from her constitutional
moorings. but you cannot do it with
my vote; -
not in conflict with the spirit of the
constitution of our fathers, want to
know why 1t Is necessary to pass the
original measure. You mean to tell
me that 1t is a mere police regulation!
Then I'll tell you that the constitution
is not made to contain matters of
pediency. The constitution is meant
to contain certain declarations of prin-
ciples upon which all men could agree
for machinery of government.
Murder is a crime. Why not put
1t in the constitution? You mean to
tell me that violator of the prohibit
ton law Is worse than a murderer?
Burglary is q crime, robbery Is a
crime. rape is a heinous crime. Why
not put them all in the constitution I?
Do you mean to tell me that a viola
tor of the prohibition law Is a worse
man than the burglar. robber or rape
fiend? Then why make a dirty dish
rag of the constitution, consecrated
by the blood of our fathers7
Here you are going to call a
special election. costing the state $780,
900 to do a useless thing. If 1t Is not
in conflict with the constitution.
why at the last session of the
Legislature didn't you vote to abolish
the Legislature and put the sole power
of government in the hands of the
governor? The people had a right to
vote upon such a question. and there
seemed to be more need of such action
on that question than there seems for
the present issue.
will you put prohibition in the con-
stitution OF the state because 1t will
stop agitation? l heard that argu-
ment used in the House the other day,
and 1t was about the only argument
used. II any person thinks that by one
election he can stop agitation after
1000 years of 1t on the question, then
he is very limited as to vision. narrow
in observation.
Government for forty centuries
have tried every expediency to solve
the problem and 1t still stands a
serious. perplexing. overwhelming
problem. which. like Banquo's ghost,
will not down
And yet some of these prohibition
gentlemen say put 1t in the constitu-