The advocate. [volume] (Charleston, W. Va.) 1901-1913, 1912-10-17
gree Isl S&uHirf FesSSG and all be ser

CIV SnoNiV SUSu 1hu all oc SoTVCU
with warrants and should suffer the
due penalty OF the law. 1t is need
less to say that the minister failed %
secure his petition.
Well, what does Maine now think
OF constitutional prohibition? II a
success her people would endorse 1t
pretty nearly unanimously, would
they not? The conditions which
briefly portrayed have Disguised
our people and they arc equally di-
vided On the ACCESSIBILITY of retain
ling this law.
J The Democratic party in 1911 in
Legislature gave the prohibitory
= amendment back to the people for en-
tdorsement or rejection. In the cleo
Ition which followed the $4,000 major
/ ity by which prohibition went into
the constitution in 1884 was wiped
out.
: In 1854, 23,422 voters voted against
constitutional prohibition. In 1911.
56,4S3 voters voted against it. Eight
state voted against constitutional pro-
. hibition. All the cities except one
ny an aggregate majority of 100000
votes voted against it, and this after
the hardest fight by prohibitionist in
the history of the state. backed by
such foreign talent as Hobson, Glenn
MORROW, Blaire and Li,tlef1eld, all
under large salaries and with the fur
Their aid of campaign fund exceeding
$1,000
Gentlemen. Maine has changed her
mind, she has tried statewide pr6h:s
oltion and has found that it does not
work. The democracy after the decla.
ration or the vote on the retaining
or the law, called special session Oh
, the legislature and submitted another
amendment which in substance gave
local regulation to the cities and AL
lowed towns to remain under con-
stltutional prohibition. to change ONLY
when majority of the voters Of the
town requested change. This
amendment was acceptable to a ma
Jointly of the House and Senate. but
did not have the necessary two-thiras
majority to get it before the people
Now, why this condition, this dissat-
tisfaction in Maine, and why sho,fId
you good people of West Virginia
keep such condition out of the con-
Stitution Of your state? Let me give
you the following reasons, which I
believe are sound:
lst. Your constitution is no place
for criminal or police regulations. I'm
the constitution they become a dead
letter. as they have too broad an ap
plication.
IND. Constitutional prohibition
makes the entire state the unit and
notification of the basic law of the
state follows logically liz every civ
and town where actlai prohibition is
not in the majority.
5rh- Constitutional prohibition
leaves you no method CT regulating
your liquor traffic in the cities.
4th- There being no method of
regulation You make possible and sure
the opening of fake drug stores,
holeS. dives, kitchen bars, social
clubs, state rum shops: and you also
make your cities an ideal resort for
the bootlegger.
9Th. You establish in all except
dry territory a diregard Of constitu-
tlchal law and place a premium on
hypocrisy.
9th Local regulation making the
city or the county the unit enables
you to reach the question at short
range through local officials. and this
is majority rule; and majority rule
In America is safest in The end.
18th. Constitutional prohibition
transfers the control Of domestic is
sue in your cities to a rural legfsla-
ture who cannot possibly solve your
question.
These conditions are tie experience
of Maine and were the experiences
OF the other New England States.
which have returned to local option
as Maine will surely return to it in
,.me
All honor to the men and women
OF high ideals, but we must deal with
coalitions as they are. Locks on
your doors and bars to your windows
prisons, jails and reformatories, are
not admissions Of lack of faith in hu-
manly, but they are Necessary until
the ideals of the founders of this gov-
eminent and the teachings of the
Nazarine become the highest rule of
the average American citizcl.