Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1915-01-14

| a. to the attitude Of substantially .
third Of the house membership. Az
| Stunning that this system will continue.
the new members Of the house who
were elected last November will go
into the next election without an OFF,
cial expression of their position on the
prohibition amendment. Believing that
the public Is entitled to know how
these newly elected congressman stand
on this question, Tho National Voters
League Intends to ask each new menu
Der how he would have voted, and
later puhlish tho replisA
The Special Rule.
TT has already been explained how
the consideration Of the Hobsoni
amendment had to be brought about
thru a special rule reported voluntarily
by the committee on rules. These spe-
cial rules which give privilege and pre-
cedence to certain questions have be-
come known as gag rules This is be-
cause they limit debate and usually
prevent amendments. In this case the
special rule imposed no restrictions as
to amendments. That may have been
because the enemies of tho resolution.
who were In control Of the proceedings.
had amendments to offer The APP.
pended official proceedings give the
text of all proposed amendments.
The Mann Amendment.
THE proposal OF the minority lead
err, James r. Mann. that the Hobson
constitutional amendment be submitted
to conventions In the several states,
rather than be ratified in the usual
way by state legislatures, was general
ly supported by the liquor forces. But
1t did not receive all the votes that
were cast against the prohibition
amendment. The vote on the Hobson
resolution was 1877 for to 1s9 against.
This Mann amendment was lost 116
to 2l0.
There is little probability that any
Of the chief proponents OF the Mann
amendment would have voted for the
Hobson resolution, even with that pro-
vision incorporated in 1t. But there
can be no doubt that the liquor forces
would have preferred that change, II
the resolution had carried. The Mann
amendment, ON its face. seems thor
oughly reactionary. Conventions rep
resent a typically old guar1 idea. 1t
would be comparatively easy for the
saloon interests to pack such state con-
ventions. They would be subject to no
such safeguards as would surround Of
ficially organized legislative bodies.
The saloon interests. thru their active,
we'll organized political forces would
have every advantage. Doth in the
origin and control of conventions for
that purpose.
A Bipartisan Vote.
with the single exception Of the
tariff, no question before congress in
recent years has been decided along
party lines. The house machine Is dis
tinctly BIZ partisan. The debate and
vote on the prohibition amendment
was a conspicuous illustration of this
fact. Oscar w. Underwood. the demo-
crat leader. and James r. Mann. the
republican leader. stood shoulder to
shoulder, both contending that this is
sue was one for the states to deter
mine.
States rights was the excuse used
oftenest by opponents or prohibition
in both old parties. The liquor inter
ests and their friends always champion
the rights of the Jurisdiction next be-
low the one in which they are threat
ened When fighting national prohibi-
ton. their contention Is for states
rights: when combating statewide
and when confronted with county OPP
ton, they invariably argue that local
! option IL the thing.
No Saloon Defenders.
Perhaps the moEt remarkable feat
ure OF the debate was the practical
unanimity with which ALL both pro and
con. proclaimed themselves for the
prohibition cause. With two possible
exceptions. no one defended the liquor
interests. In most caseS those who
fought hardes, against the Hobson res
olution were most emphatic in their
claims of loyalty TO the ether side. A
few illustrations will be interesting:
4 believe In temperance. ! believe
in local option.'-Martin b. Madden.
| Il am an advocate Of temperance.
| l DO not believe that this resolution
stands for temperance. r.. w. Par
ker.
| L disapprove the resolution because
II fear its adoption would result in
multiplying the prohibition we have al
ready STANDARDIZATION c. Adamson.
| This is not q temperance question.
| ! regard this question as an attack
upon the fundamental principles OF our
government. (Applause)."-O w.
4 CnQeTWOOO.
| Il am for morality and against i'm
morality. I am for temperance and
against drunkenness. But. l am not
able to vote for the resolution now
pending.'-James r. Mann.
! Il yield to no man in my desire to
vote for such legislation as will pro-
mote the cause of real temperance in
the use Of intoxicating liquors. l con-
slider the question now pending before
this house the most Incorporate that
could be devised."-James C. Cantrill.
In voting against the prohibition
amendment / find myself upon the
same side as are the liquor interests.
When you vote for this amendment
lyou take away the power Of the people
in the states to pass upon II and place
it in the hands of representatives only
la principle which have opposed in
the past."-I. l.. Lenroot.
Il believe that intemparance ID the
chief cause Of crime, poverty and mis-
cry. l think df Intoxicating liquors
were banished) there would result an
efficiency. health and q happiness
which would compensate tenfold for
the business and revenue which would
be destroyed. But, in my opinion. this
resolution would not bring about that
result and I shall vote against it,
Frederick II. Gillett.
Liquor Influence in Politics.
ITO those familiar with current po-
litical corruptions. 1t seemed that toe
few members emphasized the cam
naivp work nf the lfutor generalization