The Hattiesburg news. (Hattiesburg, Miss.) 1908-1917, 1913-11-29

which on their face may appear just
and right, but behind which dynamite
has been placed with a lighted fuse to
explode and destroy the whole bill |
The advocates Of this bill will not take
orders from its opponents, but prefer
to follow the beaten path that its fran.
ers have made.
There is no question of individual
liberty involved in the passage of this
bill. 1t will not prevent liquors from
being brought into prohibition states
and being used for lawful purposes.
There is nothing in this bill that will
prevent the good Christian people of
the prohibition states from getting all
the wine they desire and using it for
sacramental purposes, and no one
knows this better than the gentlemen
who say it destroys individual liberty
and impairs sacramento privileges.
This is not a prohibition question.
If were not in favor of prohibition,
there is one great principle of free
government involved that would cause
me to vote for the passage of this bill.
Nine states have declared by MAORI
ty of the people living in them that in
toxicating liquors in those states
shall not be sold or used in violation
of the law in those states. Laws when
made, should be enforced or repealed,
and every arm of the state government
should be used in the enforcement of
the peoples laws, and the Federal gov
eminent should never give counter
nance and sanction to the violation
of the laws of any state. Certainly no
man on this floor would say that if the
people of Maine desire prohibition that
they should not be permitted to have
it. If Missouri wants liquor distilled
and sold there, then they should be al
lowed to have it. If that be true, then
certainly you will agree with me that
the people of Missouri ought not to de-
sire to violate the laws of Maine, but
on the contrary, every law-abiding
citizen of that state would prefer to
encourage the people of Maine in the
execution of their laws. The Represen-
q tatives of the people of Missouri and
l. every other state in the Union that
n legalizes the sale and use of intoxicat-
t. ing liquors can certainly assist the
S people of the prohibition states in the
II enforcement of their laws by voting
e for this bill, which will guarantee to
2, those states the control of this matter
/ and the exclusive right to execute its
II own laws.
e This bill does not express a radical
% idea. 1t is not extreme. But, Mr.
e Speaker, the gentlemen of the Judici
n airy Committee, and those who have
il framed this litigation and looked into
n it thoroughly, tell us that under the
g decisions of the courts constituting
former acts of Congress on the sub
10 gress and the limitation of the Federal
Il Constitution, that it is the best we car
is do and as far as we can go.
v, Strange is the argument used by
'e some against this bill. Why, they say
le there it will do no good" that I'll
.e will accomplish no purpose" If tina
= be true, why, then, do they oppose
it? In my opinion, it will do grea
deal of good. 1t is not for the purpose
of getting the Federal government
to assist the states in the enforcement
1 of their laws, as some contend. bu
j it will answer the purposes for which
it was intended, and that is, to giv'
the states unhampered, and exclusiv'
e power to enforce their own liquo
laws.
When our fathers framed this gov
eminent the most enthusiastic AM
earnest proponents of a strong central
lied government would not have cor
tended that each state should not b
+ free to regulate and execute its ow
- police powers. They never dreame
Il, that the champions of the liquor intel
p ests would ever hide behind the inte
I'd state commerce clause and thereby le
re the Federal government encroach VI
nc on the police powers of state. Ant
= Mr. Speaker, if any of those gentl
- men in the Constitutional Convention
IF in their widest dreams of imaginatio
t. could be used to obstruct justice in tt
ue enforcement of laws by any state I
to limit the morals of the people
IS any state or hinder the full exercise
in the will of the people of a sovereit
or state, then. the interstate CONNER
ny clause would never have been WRITE
= into the Constitution without provi
making clear the intention of its draf
men. l do not doubt that the frame
knew what they were about, but l