Grand Forks daily herald. (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1914-1916, 1914-12-24
THE RESOLUTION AM MIR,
HOBSON.

The obs amendment providing
for a constitutional prohibition
amendment was given u slight MAORI
ty OF the votes cast in the house,
which was expected. and failed by a
considerable margin to secure the nee
essary two-thirds. This result was
also generally expected. There will,
therefore. be no prohibition amend
ment submitted at this time. What
would have been the effect OF the pas
sage Of the resolution in the house
is a matter on which the observers
are not agreed. We have seen moth
ing In the nature of a close estimate
of what the senate would have done
with the resolution had it been passed
in the house.
h passage Of the resolution in the
two houses would not, Of course,
have made it law. IT. would merely
have caused it's submission to the
states, and ~three-fourths OF these must
have ratified it before it would have
become a law. That this would have
been done is extremely unlikely, for
there is 6. great deal Of sentiment,
even among those who are opposed to
the liquor traffic against imposing on
n states measures relating to police
powers, which have since the founda-
ton or the nation been reserved to the
states. In fact, the resolution was
supported by many, not on the ground
that it should become a law, but on
the ground that it was proper to give
the states an opportunity to say
whether they wished this change or
not. This lis exactly the ground on
which the resubmission of the prohi-
bition question in North Dakota is
supported by many Of it's advocates.
The Herald does not wish it's posi-.
ton on this question to be misunder-
stood. 1t recognized fully tho evils
which have flowed from the use of
intoxicants, and it has welcomed in
the past, and will welcome in the fu-
ture, and movement which is likely to
curb the traffic and thereby lessen
the evils. But it also recognizes that
questions relating to personal habits
are largely local. and then treatment
which will be useful will be useless or
worse than useless in another. There
are sections of the country In which
prohibition will be effective, and 9TH
er sections where it will not. Our own
state, we believe. belongs In the for
class, and in spite Of difficulties
and lapses. we believe that the condi-
in. North Dakota are better than
they would be under any license or
local option Law. Other. states are
differently situated. No. governmental
agency which we have or which we
can create could suppress the sale Of
liquor in New York city. in Chicago.
New Orleans, or in any other Of our
very large cities. If New York state
under a rigid prohibition law,
state at large might be dry, but
The authorities would have a snug
Cling problem such az they have never
vet met. Liquor would be sold sur
reptitiously in the fashionable clubs
and blind pig doggeries would abound
n the slums, which would be az nu-
merous in the cellars as mushrooms
are In rich ground. This would apply
n greater or less degree to every
large city in the country. and especial
y to cities with large foreign born
Manifest1y, where the conditions in
state are so varied. the same law
Will not apply quell to all parts Of
t. and In relation to such q subject
VI the liquor traffic. interests Of So
'tety will best be served BY absolute