The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1917-02-27
Ignored States Rights.

every respectable factor in our civ
ilization.
Ignored States Rights.
When the supreme court handed
down their last decision on liquor.
1t was recognized everywhere as a
challenge to the United States to
catch up with the highest judicial tri-
hnnal in the land. Congress accept
ed the challenge and enacted the So
called bone-dry and anti-liquor ad
vertising act. Again the liquor lobby
and the wet press heralded the state
ment far and wide that this action OF
congress removes the necessity of ma
ton wide prohibition. On the con-
trary. this act Of congress should he
and doubtless will be a tremendous
aid Ia Occurring the adoption Of M
tional prohibition. The greatest OBJ
lection to the submission OF the pro-
htbition amendment and it's adoption
was the claim that 1t infringed on
state rights. Several congressman
who claimed to be, and doubtless
were advocates of state prohibition.
objected TO the federal government
forcing uron them a standard pro-
hibition other than that which they
themselves had adopted. This was the
last defense of the opposition which
claimed responsibility. The liquor
crowd. in their zeal to try TO make
prohibition laws odious. started some
thing that they could not stop. The
most Objectionable part or their pro-
posal was eliminated and congress &C
cepted the portion OF ii which would
make prohibition states one-dry
without reference TO their state legis-
lation on this subject matter. In
other words congress. by an over
whelming ajority. went on record
for legislation against the liquor traf-
&c which ignored entirely state rights.
In a number of states the people
had prohibited the traffic in liquor.
but had not prohibited possession ana
receipt of liquor. In such states linn
tied amounts OF liquor could be Sc
cured by individuals for their own
use through the channels OF inter-
state commerce. In such states they
appealed to congress to prevent the
federal government from breaking
down their prohibition laws through
the agency of interstate commerce.
but did not ask to have any higher
standard OF prohibition until the
states as a whole could pass upon the
question by federal amendment for
national prohibition. In this way the
people of all the states could decide
for themselves whether they wanted
the federal government to force a
prohibition policy on states which
were unfriendly to it. This was a
conservative position, but congress re-
spending TO the wave of sentiment
which is sweeping over the country
against liquor, and evidently consi1-
cred that liquor. being In a class by
itself and. as the supreme court said.
"a source of crime and misery to
society" should not. have the consid
Grafton which would normally be
given to any ordinary comm odity. 1t
swept aside every consideration along
this line and passed the act which pro-
hibits the purchase, the ordering or
causing of liquor to be transported
into a prohibition state where the
manufacture and sale are outlawed.
The state rights argument was given
a death blow by the highest legisla-
tive body in the world. The last
refuge Of booze has been captured
and there is no argument that can
now be presented in opposition to
congress acting at once In favor of
the resolution for nation-w prohi-
bition.
Requires National Remedy.
No matter how effective state pro-
hibition law is. 1t cannot fully cure
the national evil. As long as n single
state harbors this enemy OF the pub
lie good, the whole national standard
of citizenship is lowered. Liquor deal .
ers in a few wet states make such
places the rendezvous for organizing
their forces and breaking down the
laws of other states. and corrupting
the politics of the nation. They will
not allow single inch of dry terri
tory to remain so and get the full
fruits of it's victory II they can pre-
vent it. The investigation which is
on in the federal court in Pennsylvania
is sufficient evidence of their cor
rupting influence throughout the ma
ton. The court records in the Texas
Investigation Is a complete answer to
this last brewery argument. When you
meet an enemy like this who Is un-
willing to allow any state or sub
division of the state that wants to be
decent and have the benefit of theiI
laws. there In but one thing for pa
triots to do and that is to demand an
unconditional surrender. 1t Is as i'm
possible to confine the evil effects of
the liquor traffic within the boundar-
Ia 80 ufato 20 coNfnA no