Americus times-recorder. [volume] (Americus, Ga.) 1891-current, 1917-02-26

icinal or scientific purposes; but that is
not interfering with State rights. The
States had no rights IN the premises
save what the Federal Congress gave
them, and the Federal Congress had the
right to amend the Webb-Kenyon Act,
an dthat is all the Reed amendment
does. 1t says to the State, You may
be wet or dry; choose for yourself II
whisky is injurious, and believe it is,
l think whisky shipped into my State
from some other State will affect the
health, morals, and welfare of the peo-
pie of my State as much as If it was
manufactured in Georgia.
Another thing, Mr.. Seaker, some OF
the friends of prohibition stand up AMI
say they favor national prohibition. So
dc 1. But it is a long, long way to
Tipperary' before you get national pro-
hibition. 1t must pass. or be submitted
by two-thirds vote of both breanches
OF Congress, and then be ratified by
the legislatures of three-fourths OF the
States in the Union. voted for ma
tional prohibition in the last Congress.
l will vote for it again. But am not
fooling myself that it is going to be-
come law in the near future. But l
want some fthose friends who favor
nationwide prohibition to differentiate
between why this law is interfering
with State rights and why natlonat
constitutional prohibition would not
Saw three-fourths of the States want
constitutional prohibition and one
fourth of the States do not, do not the
three-fourths ofrce prohibition on the
one-fourth of the States that do not
want it, thus clearly interfering with
the rights of those States?
Then, Mr.. Speaker, some friends say
they are opposed to it because it is
too drastic. Now, want to say in my
experience the greatest argument pro-
hibitionosts have always had to COM
bat is composed of two propositions
One of them is that prohibitionists are
not sincere. Mr.. Speaker, if prohibl-
tionists oppose this Reed amendment 1t
seems to me there is some foundation
for that criticism. (Applause.) The
other is they say it interferes with
quart laws Of the respective States. My
State has 2-quart law. But | want to
say that when my State enacted that
law the proponents of prohibition de-
sired to make it as dry as possible.
And our law was enacted before the
decision in the West Virginia case, and
there was common idea prevalent
that if you prevented the transporta-
ton of whisky entirely in interstate
commerce from one State to another
the courts would hold the whole law
unconstitutional; and that alone is the
reason that they put the 2-quart prop
osition in it. l have received this
morning a telegram from Georgia
which desire to read:
Atlanta, Ca, Feb. Il, 1917.
Hon Charles R. Crisp,
The Driscoll, Washington, D C.;
At a meeting of $50 citizens or
Atlanta at the Ansley Auditorium,
including Anti-saloon League and
Georgia Dry Federation forces, 1t
wah unanimously voted that we
stand for drastic legislation and
everything else that will make the
Nation dry. We are with you and
urge all Georgia Representatives
to fight to a finish for bone-dry
legislation.
CHAS F. JONES,
Chairman Headquarters Committee
Georgia Anti-saloon League
MIR. Speaker, remarkable as it is
some prohibitionists say thed are OPP