The interior journal. [volume] (Stanford, Ky.) 1912-1984, 1917-02-23
"BONE DRY" BILL
GOES THROUGH
House Passes Measure BY Big Ma.
jority-Beckham Fears II Will
Retard Statewide

uTdSJIC nituTc was dppioNcu ny Coh-
gress Wednesday when the House by
vote of 321 to ~ accepted the SEN
ate rider to the Post-ofiice Admntra-
ton Bill, making it crime to send
Intoxicating liquor into States where
its manufacture and sale is prohib-
tied.
Coupled with this provision, which
will have the effect of making twen-
ty-fve States "bone dry" was provi-
sion that newspapers, circulars and
cards carrying liquor advertisements
cannot be carried through the United
States mails into States where publ
cation of such advertisements are
forbidden. Eleven States now have
such laws. The states, where the bone
dry bill will have its effect are: Alas
ka, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona,
Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi,
Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, North
Dakota, North Carolina, Oregon, Ok
lahoma, South Carolina, South Da-
kota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia,
West Virginia, Washington.
The most curious lineup of ''wet"
and "dry" forces that Congress has
seen since the birth of prohibition
movement, developed or the final
roll call on the so-called Reed amend
ment. Many "dry" members opposed
the drastic measures on the ground
that it would nullify State laws
which do not restrict personal use"
and that it would prove harmful to
the cause. Many "wet" members vot-
ed for it because they believed in
giving the alleged "dry" States a
taste of prohibition that prohibits.
All arguments advanced against
such drastic legislation by either
"near drys" or "wets" were swept
aside in the determination of the
House to carry prohibition legisla-
ton to it's greatest heights. DRY"
members tried to show the legsla-
tion would hurt the cause of prohibit
tion; but ''bone dry" members refus-
ed to listen; "wets" sought to demon
strate the harmful effects in finan-
cial way of such sumptuary legisla-
ton and other "wets" followed the
principle; "If they want prohibition
let's give them the real thing"
One of the Kentucky members of
the House only two voted against the
legislation. They were Representa-
tives Swager Sherley, of Louisville,
and A. B. Rouse, of Burlington
Those voting for the Reed amend
ment were: Alben w. Barley, of
Paducah; David H. Kincheloe, of
Madisonville; Robert Y. Thomas, Jr.,
of Central City; Harvey Helm, of
Stanford; j. Campbell Cantrill, of
Georgetown; William j. Fields, of
Olive Hill; John w. Langley, of
Pikesville and Caleb Powers, of Bar
bourville.
In regard to this bill, the Cincin-
natl Enquirer said in dispatch from
Washington: The passage of the
Reed amendment to the Postoffice
Appropriation bill prohibiting the in
terstate shipment of liquor into dry
states for beverage purposes is re-
garded in some quarters as one of
the most brilliant maneuvers that
liberals have made recently i'm STEM
ming the tide of prohibitory legisla-
ton. Dry leaders assert the amend
ment is so drastic it will defeat pro-
hibition, causing the repeal of some
state laws and delaying the passage
of others.
When the Senate had the bill last
week, a number of the drys, led by
Senator Beckham, voted against the
measure as being really too drastic
for many states where statewide
prohibition has not yet been voted.
Senator Beckham made the follow
ing statement about his position:
"The effect of the so-called Reed
amendment, if it should be finally en-
acted into law, would undoubtedly be
to hurt the cause of prohibition
and those friends of prohibition i'm
the Senate, who supported it did not,
think, fully understand what it's eff
feet would be.
"In practically all of the States
which have adopted prohibition there
have been limitations in their laws
permitting a certain small amount of
liquor for personal use to those who
desired it. 1t has been found imprac-
ticable to make the law too drastic
ard absolute at the beginning, and it
has been considered best to let such
laws, by gradual processes, reach the
bone dry stage.
"The Reed amendment would make
impossible any such limitation and
would put it out of the power Of any
State to do so.
at is so drastic that it would UNI
questiOnably have the effect of injur-
ing or defeating the cause of prohibit
ton in any State. In Kentucky, for
instance. when the issue of State-wids
prohibition comes it is probable that
the proposed law or amendment
Co. an lv,ostaA v,arSnnaI