The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1915-01-07
GREENE ON HIS mo" VOTE
Why First District Congressman Op.
posed National Prohibition

In explaining his vote on the Hob
/. son amendment, in which he vote
4 with the minority against nationa
a prohibition, Congressman Frank L
! Greene of the First Vermont distric
: puts his reasons almost wholly on III,
/ grounds Of constitutional state rights
regarding the amendment as an at
tempt on the part Of the federal gov
ernment to encroach. He takes firm
stand, however, for temperance and
for state prohibition If the people SC
will and vote.
/ His letter, which was addressed to a
constituent in Essex junction, reads in
part as follows
"The adoption of the Hobson amend
ment to the national constitution
means the surrender of the police pow
er of the people Of the State of Ver-
mont to regulate the liquor problem
for themselves in their own way.
"lt means the first such surrender
Of the police powers of the State since
the organization of the Union, and the
driving Of an entering wedge into the
powers of the State expressly reserved
to themselves as states and what may
fairly be said to be in effect a condi-
tion precedent to the formation of any
Union at all
THAT this is serious proposition
and one not lightly to be passed over,
no matter how strong and earnest
ones convictions on the morals of the
liquor question may be, must be ap-
parent to every thoughtful man.
"ln this instance, the entering
wedge is driven into the state consti-
tuition under cover of the liquor ques-
tion and advantage is taken of a
strong prohibition sentiment to accom-
plish what many friends of prohibition
themselves doubtless would not con-
sent to have done if the proposition
were made simply to take away the
States internal police powers in gen
eral, without naming any specific pur-
pose in it.
But, once the State has consented |
to surrender its police powers over one
thing, the thoughtful man may we'll
ask himself where the movement is to
stop, and how long it will be before
all the States police pow
ers have been surrendered to the ma
tional government on one pretext or
and the principle of the local
from the beginning
the true foundation of our scheme of
national unity, is lost in centralized
government at Washington and the
states themselves reduced to mere ad-
districts under the fed
~. ~.
In support of his position that Yer
mont would reserve the exclusive
light to regulate such matters Of in
ernal police, Mr.. Greene cites the first
of the State, (Chap. /,
Art. 81 i,
That the people of this State by )
heir legal representatives, have the !
ole, inherent, and exclusive right of
governing and regulating the internal .
'olice of the same.
The Congressman continues, after >
alling attention to the fact that never .
nee in 1877 years have the people of 4
'ermont indicated any desire for .
hange in this respect.
"Of course, it is argued that the +
Iobson amendment provides for ref
rendum of the states. But does it
| vote in favor of submitting this A
mendment to so-called referendum,
would not mean that our people
t home would have the exclusive
ght to say for themselves whether, ,,
, far as Vermont is concerned, this u
1lice power now reserved to the State n,
lould be surrendered to the national a,
overnment, or retained by the State.
ut would mean that If three-fourths p
the states of the Union voted in M
lvor of the amendment upon such
omission to them, Vermont would W
I'VE to surrender her right of internal A
,lice in this respect, even though
cry man, woman, and child in the ID
of Vermont, speaking
r themselves, voted against it. >,
81 do not see my way clear at this u
ne thus to jeopardize Vermont's :,
yht to the exclusive" determination n
her own police powers so long and Va
sacredly guarded in such precise ~
d explicit terms in her organic law, Al
r do / see how, as representative Of ~
e First Congressional district, can II
stify casting my vote to do so until
e people themselves have by their HI
m act in some manner easily under
andable made known their willing Go
SIS to surrender it themselves. co
Il do not believe that the people Of
: First district are yet willing to H.,
We California, New Mexico, Arizona, NJ, NJ
xas, South Carolina, New York, or To,
ah, for instance, decide what kind Of -
iquor law we of Vermont should live =
der, and how it shall be enforced. En-
THE reference of the Hobson H'u
endment to the states is not a ref
ndum of the question Of national pei
to the people Of the states,
Is a referendum to the legislatures ton
the states. Lu
'Hobsons proposition involves the Mo
render Of the states police power. 7