The bee., 1911-08-18

| that the people did not want IL. Ar
did. and do yet. Nc { her local az s.
tion has provoked ss s'uch discussion
or as pronounced and unanimous pub
| lie sentiment In Kentucky. Still, the
popular will and the constitution have
been dehed. How and why? Thel
liquor interests, particularly the brew
ers, have prevented T. They have pre-
vented It by means Of their activity inl
politics In Kentucky--in both parties'
maybe, In the Democratic party par
ticulariy, By which they have con-
trolied the Legislature. They are as
sessed in every State and legislative
campaign for political purposes, and
| they pay. In return they get immun-
ity as against the constitution. They
prefer 70 contribute to the election Of
State Senators (there are fewer OF
them), then Of Representatives, and
lastly TO the State executive oficers.
They are determined at whatever cost
that that section Of the constitution OF
Kentucky (section Ell shall not be
carried into effect by legislation. In
spite of campaign after campaign In
which that issue has been presented In
electing Legislatures, and In spite OF
emphatic majorities pledged to the
county unit and the constitution. the
Legislature has not acted. The liquor
interests have defeated tt to the
shame OF Kentucky-have controlled
the Legislature for twenty years. and
that against the constitution and the
people. A power such as that IL dan
gerous Well may politicians tremble
at It's menace, and certain big news
papers danca TO its music. A power
that is TO be feared Is a power also to
be courted by those who fear 1t more
than they dare II.
Let us clear away FIRST some confus-
ing and misleading statements OF those
who are to-day openly fghtlng the
battles OF the liquor interests In this
campaign. They charge that State
wide prohibition is the issue That is
not true. II is not even proposed by
our party as an issue. and could not
be adopted except by an amendment
70 the constitution. Everybody knows
that no such amendment IL proposed.
Nor is II the issue whether q man
should be allowed 10 drink II he
wants to.
II is not at issue whether sobriety
or total abstinence shall be forced on
people as legal instead of moral
status.
The whole issue is whether the con-
stitutton shall prevail on this subject.
Whether as to the retail liquor bust
ness the constitution shall be dead
letter.
Whether prohibition is wise or un-
wise as a policy, whether partial or
total prohibition should prevail, are
utterly beside the question. For how
ever one may think as to those things.
the question still comes back. What
shall be done with the constitution
Is Il tolerable that any interest may
have the constitution nullihed as TO II
because the constitution Is not thought
to be wise? II so. then the interests
which are monopolies could maintain
that Section 1893 OF the constitution
against monopolies be ignored for their
benefit. Indeed, whenever II IL con-
ceded that any exact, mandatory pro-
vision OF the constitution may be ig-
nored by any department or business
interest, because II IL impolitic, or 9TH
erwise, the Constitution ceases 10 have
q value as an instrument Of protection
for the people So plain proposition
need not be discussed. II seems
strange that anyone could be found to /
seriously dispute H.
The liquor business 10 now q lawful |
business where allowed by law TO exist.
Its interests are therefore 10 be treated
In Kentucky under the constitution a.
lawful. II IL not 10 be treated differ.
entity, only % far as the law recog-
nises or creates the difference. The
liquor business 10 not natural right
II II q created right--so all the courts
declare. The doctrine Is universal II
Is the one business that ID regulated
by law under every government In the
world. It's legal status 10 so well
settled in that respect that II II even
accepted without further contest by
the liquor people. II is also true that
many people engaged IN that business
desire to conduct II strictly within the
law. It is pity they do not control
the business. So many In the business
refuse to live under the law, defy II,
break II, and corrupt its enactment,
that the whole business, as II were. IL
treated in the public mind as being
guilty Of these infractions. In simple
Justice to the law-abiding members
this statement is made. The innocent
members of the business are thus sub
tected to double danger; Of being
subjected to harsher regulation be-
cause of the rebelliousness Of their fell
lows; or having their business out
lawed as the only means of curbing the
iawlessness Of the majority In II. In
stead OF fighting society, they might
better fight the lawless element In
their own calling But the menace Of
that lawless element is 30 imminent
and real that society must protect H.
self. In this State we are committed
to regulation - not determination.
Regulation includes, under the consti.
tuition, the right to deny the privilege
In given communities. The people
have deliberately reserved to them
selves the right to say In what COM
munities the extreme or modified regu-
latiops shall apply. The fight against
the people and the constitution has as
sumed the position by the liquor inter-
ests Of not only defying the constitu-
ton, but Of corrupting the politics of
fha State -