The labor advocate. [volume] (Cincinnati, Ohio) 1912-1937, 1917-03-03

amendment as has been adopted in other
prohibition States, permitting limited
personal use. There are many thou
sands of voters in Kentucky who are
ready to vote for the limitation of the
saloon, and even the distileries and
breweries, but who are not willing to
vote for the abolition of the limited per-
sonal use privilege. Each State that has
adopted prohibition has found it best to
secure it by degrees and to allow the
| limited personal use until public senti-
ment would permit the application of
bone dry legislation
81 have thought that that was the best
plan for us to follow in Kentucky, and
for that reason | opposed the Reed
amendment as did Senator Kenyon and
Judge Webb, of the House of Repre-
sentatives, the two leaders in the respec-
tive houses of the prohibition cause
Have Taken Same Stand.
"They and many other leaders of the
movement have taken the same position
that / did in regard to it, and believe
that genuine, complete prohibition is
reached rather by progressive stages
than by means of immediate, drastic
measures.
"As the law stands, under the recent
decision of the Supreme Court on the
Webb Kenyon act, each State has the
power at any time to become bone dry
without the assistance of any Federal
legislation such as the Reed amendment.
That amendment does not advance the
prohibition movement one particle in
Kentucky, because, without that amend
,1,o lao,
if it desires, TO submit bone dry
ment was not introduced for the purpose
ator Reed, the author of it, is beyond
question the strongest and most uncom-
promising foe in the Senate of prohi-
bition or temperance measures. He has
been one of the main leaders in the fight
against every prohibition measure be-
fore the Senate, and it is his view, as
that side of this question, that his
thwart the prohibition movement
Says 1t Is Doubtful.
For instance, in Ohio they will vote
on prohibition this year and the drys
would have excellent chance to carry
an amendment, such as has been adopt
ed by other States. Whether they can
carry the bone dry amendment is very
doubtful. There is no question but what
it will give us harder fight in Ken
tucl<y when it comes up before our
people, and it will require much great
er amount of work from the friends
of prohibition in our State. AS for my
SELF | should prefer to see bone dry
amendment adopted, and there will be
no man in Kentucky who will give more
time or labor in the campaign to secure
the adoption of such an amendment than
expect to do.
81 think the adoption of the Reed
amendment was a mistake, but that we
fight all the harder, all the more vigor-
Gus to win.
"Thc friends of prohibition should
not allow themselves to be divided in
this fight. We are to have the bone dry
amendment submitted. 1t has been my
opinion that we should not submit that
kind of an amendment first, but reach
the 'pone dry stage by subsequent legis-
lation, as the conditions should justify;
but | shall not be discouraged because
my opinion has not prevailed and shall
labor all the more to assist in the adop-
ton of the amendment when it comes to
a vote of the people"
The whole thing in nut shell is that
if we have bone dry" law or real pro-
hibition, the leaders of the dry cause will
loose their graft, and that is why they
are fighting. They want to take up col
lcctions from suckers to make the State
dry but they do not want it to become
so.