The Lambertville record., 1916-11-09
GREAT DEBATE
OF WET VS.. DRY

NY IHe CuuICu pSoplS VI LdulDeTC Z
vile for Wet VS.. Dry" cebate, tc
be given in the First Presbyteiar
church on Tuesday evening, Novem.
ber IA, at 7.45 O'CLOCK.
In this debate two characters are
impersonated by two of the regular
staff of the Anti-Saloon League. DR.
O. Bell Close impersonates Johr
Carlisle, an Attorney and a candi.
date for the Senate. M. S. Poulsor
takes the role of Alexander Pierpoint
big business magnate, proprietor
of a newspaper and a prominent
church official. I Carlisle calls upon
Pierpont at his office to secure his
help in his campaign. These two
characters are old college chums,
having been at Harvard together.
Pierpoint is seated at his desk,
going through a mass of correspond
ence when. Carlisle enters. The con-
versation. that followss.i natural and
chummy. 1t soon leads up to Carl
isles campaign and he asks Pier
pont to help shim. Pierpont tells
him he is too busy and not interested
in such matters. Carlisle comes
back at him with a protest, declar-
ing that no man can be too busy to
take care of the obligations of citi-
zenship.
Pierpont lodges this and excuses
himself by saying that he can not
help elect, a man upon a platform
that he doesn't believe in and points
out that Carlisle's platform of pop
ular governments,would inevitably
involve the liquor issue. This opens
up the whole liquor question and
then in most natural and enter
tanning fashion these two old college
chums go at it hammer and tong.
Pierpont brings up the well-known
objections to the various stages of
the anti-liquor fight. He doesn't
like the preachers getting into poll
tics; he doesn't want church to have
anything to do with the dirty game"
he declares for personal liberty
Carlisle meets each of these object
ions with good humored, positive
statements that are logical and con-
vincing.
Pierpont evidently feels the force
of the argument and jumps to an
other phase of the question and
declares that there is too much
trickery in the Local Option cam
paign and says that the leaders of
the movement are trying to put
one over on the unsuspecting public. "
Carlisle scores him for this and in a
few well-directed questions, proves
that every stage of the legislative
program of the Anti-Saloon League
is a consistent application of the
fundamental American principle of
majority rule.
Pierpont sees how futile that line
of argument is and Immediately de-
clares that he doesn't believe in pro
hibition, and then proceeds to de-
clare that it throws men out of en-
ployment, confiscates property, and
adds that the liquor men ought tc
be compensated when their property
is destroyed and their business taken
from them. When Carlisle proves
the fallacy of each of these state.
ments and declares for compensation
that will compensate t he liquor
people after they have compensated
the people for the ravages of the
traffic, Pierpont calls Carlisle's at
tention to the fact h a t property
values will go to smash under pro
hibition and that the tax rate viii
go up. Every one of these points
is met by Carlisle with positive state
ments backed by data that is unus
ually convincing.
Pierpont even brings up the use
of liquor as medicine, and the mode
beer saloon, and high license anC
strict regulation, and after every
other objection has apparently beer
disposed of in an effective manne
by Carlisle, Pierpont declares pro
hibition doesn't prohibit and tina
more liquor is sold in dry territor!
than in wet.
The interest of the listener is hell
without a break from the beginning
to the e n d and S the dramati
climax is reached, it is no wonde
tha on all occasions the crowd
break into enthusiastic applause. s