The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1917-12-27

There appears 20 be something o.
an impression among some people ,ha
this proposed amendment is simply th'
passage Of a national prohibition lav
in lis effect. A matter Of fact, this
Is rot its only effect, by any means
I X proposes TO do something far NOR,
radical than that. Ii proposes TO tax,
away from each state forever tn,
right Il has enjoyed ever since the
Union was formed to pass its owr
liquor laws for itself in its own time
in its own way, to suit the changed
and changing situation and demands
Of its own people from generation To
generation. In other words, it aims
straight at the heart of the principle
Of home rule and local self govern
men in domestic matters Of social
economy that has been one Of the dis
tinguishing features Of our American
system.
When this idea was originally pro-
posed and down to last spring, it was
argued by many supporters Of prohibit
ton that il was well-nigh useless for
a state to pass prohibition law for
itself because liquor could be shipped
into its territory from outside. This
is not true today. Last spring the
Congress passed law forbidding the
shipment of liquor into states whose
laws forbade the manufacture and sale
Of liquor within their own borders. !
voted for that law. Every state in the
Union can now have q "bone-dry" pro-
hibit on law any time its people wan.
to vote for it, and the United States
government will stand back of that
law ready to impose severe penalties
upon any person that ships liquor into
state that has adopted such law.
This federal law was passed more
than a north before the session of the
Vermont legislature closed last spring,
so t,,"t the people Of this stete could
hcve I'D a bcne-dry prohibition law
at tat time # tkey had prevailed upon
their state wmakers 10 give it to
them. And tEey can ges it yet at any
time a majority SC decides.
So It is not true that, in voting
against this resolution, | am voting
against an opportunity for Vermont to
have prohibition law. Under the fed
cral act ] have referred to, not only
Vermont but any or all states in the
Union can have absolute prohibition
any time they want it. tIt may be in
tercsting to note in passing here that
4 few weeks ago the great state Of |
Iowa submitted to its people the qnes-
lion whether a prohibition amendment
should be placed in the state Consti- |
tuition, and a popular vote decided
against it,
intend to vote against the adoption
of this resolution because the people
If the First Congressional District
nave repeatedly declared in some Of
icial form or other by their votes or
heir representatives in the legislature
hat they still adhere to the principle
If the states local option liquor law.
Only last year, after lohg and vigor-
,us campaign, the question of whether
,r not prohibition should be substitut-
ID for the local option law was sub
nitted to the voters of the state and
ne present local option law was re-
affirmed by popular vote at the polls
n majority twelve times greater
han that by which it was originally
ldopted.
This is not question, therefore, up
N which the people Of the First Con-
,ressioaal District cannot declare
and their will, and for the
olution Of which they must turn to
he Federal Congress. The people Of
he, district, and of the state, have the
and the machinery right at
ZONE now TO record themselves on this
ubject and to have the kind Of law
hey want about it, any time they may
o direct. And they have so declared
n figures Of votes and majorities that
re not disputed and that are unmis-
akable in their significance and mean
rg. How am !. in representative
apacity justified in going behind the
eturnsg
But, il Is argued, popular sentiment I
as changed since then. Suppose IT
as, how am | to know il officially? !
low shall anybody in official station
axe official notice Of such change,
ct upon II, and expect mercy from {
he courts Would the state authori-
es be justified today in refusing TO &
dminister the provisions of the local !
ption law on the ground that senti- !
zen had changed since the referendum }
nd tina, in their opinion the people Q
0 longer wanted II enforced? OF q
purse. they would not And no SEN
bic man argues such thing. And c