The Natchitoches enterprise., 1914-12-24
National Prohibition Wins A Major.
ity Vote In Congress.

The Hobson resolution to submit an
amendment to the United States Con-
stitution prohibiting the sale, transpor-
tation or importation of alcohol liquors
for beverage purposes, came to a vote
in the lower house of Congress Tues
day.
The vote was 1877 for and 1Ss against
it.
The resolution therefore failed, for
such resolution must receive a two
third vote. Nevertheless, the fact
that the friends of prohibition were
able to obtain, even a serious consider
alton of such a measure, much less a
majority for it, is one of the most mon
umental facts in the political history OF
this country.
A man who would have predicted
such thing, even ten years ago, would
have been regarded as an.idle dreamer
at the very least.
We have not seen the vote in detail
and it is therefore too early to attempt
any analysis of it. We judge, how
ever, that many Southern congressman
voted against it upon the plea that such
a law will violate the doctrine Of States
rights and that the regulation of the
liquor traffic is a local matter which
ought to be left to the States and coun-
ties.
We are rather surprised and some
what disappointed that Mr.. Aswell, the
representative from this district, was
misled by the specious arguments along
this line and voted against the resolu-
ton. We shall publish in our next is
sue the reasons which Mr.. Aswell gave
for his vote; want of space prevents US
from doing so at this time.
We yield to no one, in our admiration
of Mr.. Aswell and our regard for his
opinions, but we respectfully submit
that he was mistaken in the issue
which was really presented by the res
olution before the House.
The question was not whether Nat
ional prohibition is good policy or q
bad policy; it was simply whether the
people of the sovereign States are
competent to decide an economic, social
and industrial problem which the civil
lied world recognizes as supremely
important to the health, the morals
and the industrial prosperity of the
people.
The merits of the proposition were
not involved and the advocates of the
proposition were the only true defend
ders of the doctrine of States ri ghts
because they advocated that the peo-
pie of the several States should be &C.
corded right which is essential to the
very existence of all free government.
In addition to this, the opponents Of
the resolution are stopped to plead the
doctrine of States rights because it has
been waved, at least in respect to the
liquor question, for more than half. a
century.
The National government already sx-
erc!ses the power to regulate and even
suppress under certain conditions-the
liquor traffic. Moreover the saloon
keepers, the brewers, the distillers and
the opponents of prohibition generally,
have been advocating from time i'm
memorial until comparatively recent
period the control of the liquor traffic
and its prohibition by the National gov
eminent.
No one who has ever taken part IL
any prohibition campaign whether Stat
county, ward or precinct, has failed II
encounter among all the opponents Q
such measures, men who declared tina
they were in favor of prohibition if
were mede q national matter.
We are not disposed to be unkind il
our criticiom of Mr.. Aswell's vote o.
this question; it was not an issue in tn
campaign which resulted in his election
nor has it ever been National or Stat
issue in Louisiana.
MIR. Aswell is young, able, progress
i've and honest and should the questio
be made an issue in the next congress
sional campaign, the majority Of tn
people of this district will in all proba
bility find some means of expressin
their views on it, in which case the
alone will be to blame if their repre-
sentative does not truly represen
them.