The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1914-10-15
BALDWIN AGAINST
 PROHIBITION BILL
Answers Letters Asking His Attitude on Federal
 Amendment.

Governor Simeon E4 Baldwin de- clares in a letter to J. H Mansfield, chairman of the temperance and cdtt- zens1aip comimttee of the New Haven Christian Endeavor Union, that he does not Gavor the passage of an amendment to ths sederal constitution creating nationwide prohibition His statement was in answer to a letter of MT. Mansfield requesting him to de- fine his stand on the question. Gov ernor Baldwin said that the action would grant a privilege to the rich, and deny one to the poor G1is letter follows:
 This letter asks me whether, if elect ed to the Senate of the United States, would support or oppose the so- called tShepard-Hobson bill.'
 Under the corrupt practices act of Congress and Of this state, and the general rules affecting those nominat- ed for public office, 1t is questionable whether a. can ndddate for election as a senator can properly pledge himself in advance to vote in a particular way on particular bill pending before the Senate. The bill in question is somewhat loosely phrased, and con- tains at least one expression which would be likely to cause litigation (t1e use of or instead of and in Section 9. But what you really want to know is no doubt, whether I approve, not the
 
 pie.
 do not.
 Americans are fond of saying that they are the greatest, freest and rich est people on the earth. Ngeasurably this is true; and why? It is because we have the best scheme of govern ment yet devised by mankind for the uses of a country of great territorial extent, inhabited by a. numerous and intelligent people.
 The main excellence of this scheme is that it combines the maintenance of a strong central power over a few matters of general concern, with that of a number of constituent states, each possessing. in other respects, SOW ereign authority over its own inhabi- tants.
 It would be vain to attempt to gov 5ern all the United States from Wash 1 ington, or any other national capital, wherever placed. The machine would I break down by its own weight. Only I an a,utocracy would succeed in such @ plan.
 l The states are natural units of gov ernmental power. Their existence ee- cures home rule to their. people. Home rule under free institutions is guar anty that laws will seldom be passed which those who enact them do not 1 believe to be suited to the circu1n- 1 stances Of those whom they represent. It is a. safeguard also against the en- 1 forcement of laws with such a rigidity as might make them intolerableS The extreme of law is sometimes the ex- treme of injustice.
 1 Laws must be reasonably admin istered as well as reasonably concefv- I ed.
 The prohibition of the rnanufac- l ture or sale of intoxicating liquors within its borders is within the au thorfty of every state For that no constitutional amendment is neces- 1 sary. But a constitutdonai amend ment to give the same power to the United States would seriously disturb l the balance between the state and l nation.
 It would transfer an important function of the state to the federal 1 government
 It would take away part of the | states sovereignty over her citizens It would tend strongly toward re- l placing our constitutional scheme by | another more like that of Germany or Canada or Austria-Hungary.
 It would fortify the national sov- l ereignty, as against the sovereignty 1 of the people of the several states. II 1 would, so far forth, centraIize polfti- cal power.
 It would also favor the rich, who can import liquors in large lots fol 1 their own use, as against the poor who cannot.
 You are no doubt aware that fl Connecticut we tried the experiment of prohibition sixty years ago.
 It proved a failure.
 1 / The law could not be enforced ix ] the largest places. After 8 full trial
 we repealed it and have since found
 the local option system better adapt ed to our circumstances
 regard it also as better ada pteS l
 - ---- -