El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1911-07-06

BEOHfDltEOu4Hts HIS ~ a
ssver the antis' statements and aFgT
ments. and as he quotes In his artiels
the aRff-stateride pamphlet PRACTICAL
entire. it is felt that in printing tn
series, 10 run daily until July p (ele<
ton day), The Herald is fairly Pre-
serffns TO voters both sides of ii
great question at issue. In no ever
are the opinions here expressed
auofed TO be taken an expressiO
Of this newspaper
THE LIQUOR CATECHIsM-L
Editor FL Paso Herald:
In their fight against prohibition
Texas the liquor interests have issue
a catechism. From day to day, q
you have space, want TO devote som
attention to some of its 129 question
and answers.
Questions 1 and and their answer
read:
prohibition? Statewide prohlbi-
ton means the adoption of a
constitutional amendment which
prohibits within the boundaries
Of Texas, the sale, manufacture or
use OF beer wine, whisky or any
other beverage containing alcohol
except for medicinal, scientific
and sacramento purposes"
II. If the prohibition theory OF
regulating what a man shall drink
g correct. will the same theory
and principle apply to the regula-
ttoa of what a man shall eat,
what clothes he shall wear, what
church he shall attend, what songs
he shall sing and what games he
shall play? Regulation by pro-
hibition is the same thing wheth-
er 1t relates TO eating, wearing
clothes, playing games. singing
songs. attending church or drink
ing. The theory will be Identical
The correct answer to the first !
the proposed amendment itself which
reads as follows:
Section 1. That article is Of
the constitution of the state or
Texas be amended by striking out
and repeating section 20 thereof
and substituting in lieu or salu
section 20 the following:
Section 20. The manufacture Tor
purposes of sale, barter or ex-
change. and the sale. barter and eX-
change of fntoxicat ting liquors on
and after the second Tuesday in
January A D, 1912, is here
by prohibited within this state,
except for medicinal. sci
eutfic and sacramental purposes.
The legislature of the state OF
Texas shall, at noon on the second
Tuesday ins January, A. D., 1917,
by authority Of this section, meet
IN session in the city Of Austin
and pass efficient laws to enforce
this section; but nothing in this
section shall prevent any session
of the legislature from passing
env law to enforce the same and
ali laws in force when this amend
ment is adopted providing RENE
dies. penalties or forfeiture in re-
latfon TO the manufacture. sale or
TRANSFORMATION Of intoxicating H.
cunrs shall remain in full force
and effect until modified or re-
pealed."
The liquor interests refrain from
quoting the amendment. Its pam
reading cannot be made to support the
which they place upon
Ii. The catechism answer is incorrect
hr the insertion of the word, use,
which is not found in the anne name E.
and has no place there. Under the
amendment and without violating It
suv man could. and. doubtless many a
man would. keep and use his ewn IL
,uor 1t is true that the amendment
would close the saloon and reduce the
ION assumption, Of liquor and crime, but
hat Is what il is intended to do. This
also answers queries 19 and Il
Question and its answer are based
IN false sophistical assumptions which
ire not parallel or relevant. Proper
eating. wearing clothes, going to
church. singing and playing are IN
1erently right and not necessarily IN
urious They are necessary 10 mah
~
Welfare. On the contrary the liquor
-rafffc is inherently evil and injurious
and IL has no inherent right TO exist
rbe state supreme courts and the
United States supreme court are unaH-
nous IN clear cut decisions to the ef-
feet that the liquor traffic is inner
sntiy evil and without constitutional
light to exist. In other words, the
.aurts put the liquor traffic down on
he same level with stealing and MUIR
Ter. where it belongs. 1t must be ap-
1arent. even to superficial thinking,
hat If the liquor traffic had the same
right as has the busi-
,ess of manufacturing flour and
.lothes. the liquor prohibition laws
would have been knocked higher than
! kite long ere this on constitutional
The very fact Of constitu-
fonal prohibition is proof OF the in
lerit evil and fundamental indefensi-
,ility of the liquor traffic.
AS a matter of fact, the latter is
Unfortunate in its reference to eat
ng. clothes, singing and playing. Eat
ne is not prohibited, but the manu-
acture and sale of impure food is. The
aw. in effect. does say that man
hall not eat impure food
The law compels a man to wear
no,fgh clothes to hice his, nakedneSS,
ven il il is lax about a lady's ball
Dom costdme.
The law prohibits obscenity and
ewdness in song and play.
The intervening queries and an
wers. to G. are merely graduations
4 the theory Of / and Z.
Question and its answer in the
liquor eatechism reads:
IS. When the state. through its
legal enactments, invites a man
to engage il a business, Is It right
for the state, after he has ac-
copied such invitation, to confis-