The Salt Lake herald-Republican. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1909-1918, 1910-10-31

Mr. Chairman. 1 want TO call atten-
ton 20 the report made by the minOri-
~ OF the committee in the article they
propose TO submit for separate vote Of
the people. They say not only that the
manufacture Tor sale or gift as a beVer-
age Of Intoxicating liquors shall be
prohibited but no person, association
or corporation shall import any OF the
same for sale or gift. or sell or offer to
keep the same for sale or gift, barter
or trade. as u beverage.
In that particular, sir, 1 think. at
least, the minority have undertaken 10
do something that is impossible for
them 10 DO in other words, that we
cannot, under the decision of the SUI
preme court of the United States, pro-
nlblt the Importation into this state OF
lntoNicatin liquors as beverage, and
4 would ask gentlemen who intend TO
vote for the submission Of this clause
10 take the matter under cOnsidera-
ton. L think ii is something you can
not do.
In considering a question OF this
Character, 1 cannot, for the life Of me,
understand how you can consider it
separate ana apart from the merits Of
the question. The merits Of the Ques-
tiOn are inevitably involved in IL and
necessarily ought 10 be. because upon
the merits OF the question depend the
propriety Of either putting il directly
into the constitution or permitting the
people BY their vote 70 put il into the
constitution; and 4 hold. sir, that the
rect, wherein IL states that prohibition
Is but an experiment not only in the
way of legislative enactment, but also
BY constitutional provision.
] think it was only last year that the
good people OF the state OF Iowa rooted
out of their constitution the prOhibitory
clause on this subject. 1 lived for
some length OF time myself in the state
Of Iowa, when that was a prohibition
state by legislative enactment, and l
know not what the experience of other
gentlemen may be in prohibiting states,
nut 1 wish 10 declare that 1 know that
IN that state prOhi bltiOn was nothing
but hollow mockery, and the very
1aet that the people have but recently
even repudiated the constitutional pro
hibiuOn Is very strong evidence 10 me
that this matter Is but in It's expert
mental stage. and that We cannot afford
70 undertake that experiment by con-
stltutiOnal provision and as stated in
the majority report, Il tried at all, il
should be undertaken by legislative en-
actment.
Now, sir, I am OF the opinion that
there are things worse than even in
temperance in the use OF Intoxicating
liquors, and one Of these things worse
than the Incorporate use or intOXicants
IS the Generalization which comes 10 q
community. which threatens civil gov
eminent itself, and that is disrespect
and disregard OF law. Such IS the na-
ture of this question that il is not A
difficult matter 10 eVade the law and
wherever IL has been tried men have
evaded the law, and that successfully
more successfully in respect 10
sumptuary laws than in respect 10 any
other kinds OF law.
/ say that il is easy 10 evade this
class Of law and when you teach q
community or when you create cOndi-
tions which lead a community 10 dis
regard law, you create a greater evil
even than the evil you attempt 10 crush
by law. And for this reason l do not
want TO engraft into the constitution
this prohibition clause. l believe IL is
The right Of this convention 10 deter
mine what TO put into constitution
and what would be more proper 10
leave 10 the legislature, and for that
reason 1 think il is quite competent for
this constructors convention 10 say 70
the people, nOtwithst landing the petit
lions that are before us, that il is not
proper matter 70 insert into the con-
stitution.
Now, str, prohibition beiag an expert
neEt, and for the most part an expert
From reading the foregoing woul
proper sort of man to question anybo
il ought to be his duty to eIltieise SOM
on the liquor issue2
just who Mr.. Roberts IS SO anxio
IL may develop.